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

[CIAagent11]

It is unrealistic to have 50 different state definitions of what constitutes a legally recognized "marriage" in America.

I don't agree with taking the right to vote of some, because it would be inconvenient.

 

[NotreDame]

No I'm not. Nobody is. Everybody has the right to marry. I want to deprive them of the non-existing right of re-defining marriage as they wish.

No, not everybody does have the right to marry. You are contradicting yourself here. The point of your argument is to justify why some group does not have the RIGHT to marry. Arguing why it is permissible for some group to not have a right to marry and then tell me everybody has a right to marry is contradictory non-sense.

These people are asking for the liberty to marry people of the same sex, a liberty you are denying they possess.

So everybody has the right to whatever he wants?

Yeah...so long as it does not directly harm me physically, yes. This is the concept of liberty.

 

[CIAagent11]

Actually it's the anti gay marriage folks who are trying to redefine marriage. The state definatoin that is.

That goes word against word. Why is the pro gay side right, so it can force its minority opinion on the majority?

 

[CIAagent11]

No, not everybody does have the right to marry. You are contradicting yourself here. The point of your argument is to justify why some group does not have the RIGHT to marry. Arguing why it is permissible for some group to not have a right to marry and then tell me everybody has a right to marry is contradictory non-sense.

These people are asking for the liberty to marry people of the same sex, a liberty you are denying they possess.

I don't think you're getting me.
Blacks not being allowed to vote is descrimination based on race.
Women not being allowed to drive is descrimination based on gender.
Gays not being allowed to marry the other gender is descrimination based on sexual preference.
Gays not being allowed to marry the same gender is them not getting what they want.

Yeah...so long as it does not directly harm me physically, yes. This is the concept of liberty.

Then the state should buy me a car as part of my marriage, because I say that's what marriage means to me.
Don't come with the cost argument, gay marriage benefits cost the state more than that.

 

[reverend C]

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

your argument was that gays are asking for something different than straights are. the state ballot is one that violates a class of peoples civil rights. the statute pre-dated the ballot, so to use the ballot as a way of justifying your argument is not a valid response. you don't follow that, do you? your argument, in the op, stated that gays want a different right than already exists, and then you admit that you have no knowledge of what the existing right actually is. unless you can show that the original statute stipulated that the two people involved in the marriage must be different genders, you have made a fallacious argument. the basis for your stance is groundless unless you can show that to be the case, and you have no idea, as you have admitted. the ballot does not enter in to your argument.

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

"...instead of the argument IS A logical fallacy." you missed a couple of words. and, no, it isn't a logical fallacy. improper use of the term, i'm afraid.

 

[NotreDame]

I am in favor of every state deciding for itself. States or countries where the majority wishes to have gay marriage should do so. California does not.
It's not an option to go with democracy only as long as one likes the outcome.

Your last statement is not entirely correct. It is an option to go along with democracy so long as one likes the outcome, strictly in the sense the democratic process does not result in the violation of life, liberty, and property. You seem to forget this nation was forged under the doctrine of revolting against a government which violates the rights of its subjects. This country has a long history of its minorities no longer choosing to accept a democratic outcome they disliked, i.e. discrimination, such as the Jim Crow laws, segregation, etcetera.

So, contrary to your assertion, yes there are occasions when not going along with the demcratic outcome is an option.

The question then is appropriately framed as whether this is one of those situations? While this amendment to the state constitution was achieved by the democratic process, the question still remains whether it is right for the majority to take away the freedom of a majority at all, much less by a democratic process such as the amendment process?

 

[AirPo]

That goes word against word. Why is the pro gay side right, so it can force its minority opinion on the majority?

Because of the facts. If the law said marriage is between a man and a woman, we wouldn't have to vote on a new law that says marriage is between a man and a woman would we? So it is the anti gay marriage folks who are trying to redefine marriage to force their opinion on everyone else.

 

[Belk]

That goes word against word. Why is the pro gay side right, so it can force its minority opinion on the majority?

Because the supreme court ruled in loving Vs Virginia that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man". As such even as a majority you are not allowed to violate them. Same as the majority was not allowed to violate the rights og blacks.

 

[jgarden]

I don't agree with taking the right to vote of some, because it would be inconvenient.

**********************************************************
Nobody is forcing churches to sanction or conduct "same sex" marriges.

At present, the church will recognize marriages of dictators, Mafia bosses, mass murderers, non Christians - even Bernie Mahoff.

Conservatives would be better off supporting a separate state definition of what constitutes a "secular" marrige and resolve the issue.

 

[reverend C]

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.

you still have never shown that the statute states this to be the case. you state it because you wish it to be true.

 

[NotreDame]

I don't think you're getting me.
Blacks not being allowed to vote is descrimination based on race.
Women not being allowed to drive is descrimination based on gender.

Gays not being allowed to marry the other gender is descrimination based on sexual preference.

Gays not being allowing to marry someone of the same gender is discrimination based on gender, not sexual preference. The state is basing marriage on the gender of the couples! If the sex of one couple is a male, and the other is female, then they can marry (assuming other stipulations are also met). However, if the sex of one couple is the same as the sex of another couple, then they cannot marry. Ergo, by any use of common sense, the GENDER of the couple, both individually and collectively, is the BASIS/and ONE FACTOR for determining whether someone can or cannot marry.

Hence, again by any use of common sense, marriage, or the inability to marry, is based on gender!

Then the state should buy me a car as part of my marriage, because I say that's what marriage means to me. Don't come with the cost argument, gay marriage benefits cost the state more than that.

Absolutely terrible example...you are comparing apples to oranges. marry. We are talking about the state allowing people the freedom to do something. Your example is one of the state actively purchasing something for a person, using and expending state resources for the purchase of a product for the person. The two are not the same. Think of a better example. A better example would be one which is the same, what would be called "parallel" to what we are discussing.

 

[Allahuakbar]

So you stating your opinion as fact so makes it true, okay.
It's so self-evident that marriage is not between a man and a woman, that you don't even need any reasoning why everybody else has been wrong about it for all these years.
You saying this legal contract between a man and a woman also being between a man and a man, makes it true. Just like that.

Have you noticed that almost everyone is asking you what you're really trying to say and correcting your grammar, spelling, and definitional mistakes?

Your comments above are just a jumbled mess. It makes mistakes about the law, mistakes concerning logic, mistakes concerning sentence structure. I don't know what to say.

Quit making up insults about my grammar. Why would you even mention it if it isn't meant to convince? If it is meant to convince, it's an argument.
An argument about the opponent is an argumentum ad hominem.
Two fallacies at once. Red herring fallacy.

Your grammatical errors are not a red herring. It is almost impossible to filter through the mess to determine what you are trying to say. I am not alone in this one, if you have not noticed.

Doh! But concluding from my spelling to my personal attributes, and from there to me being wrong is not.
Red herring fallacy.

You either do not know what a red herring is, or you are intentionally applying it incorrectly. In either case, you are killing your argument through your presentation, which is bad since it is a poor argument to begin with.

 

[CIAagent11]

Your last statement is not entirely correct. It is an option to go along with democracy so long as one likes the outcome, strictly in the sense the democratic process does not result in the violation of life, liberty, and property.

Strictly speaking, I agree.

You seem to forget this nation was forged under the doctrine of revolting against a government which violates the rights of its subjects. This country has a long history of its minorities no longer choosing to accept a democratic outcome they disliked, i.e. discrimination, such as the Jim Crow laws, segregation, etcetera.

So, contrary to your assertion, yes there are occasions when not going along with the demcratic outcome is an option.

The question then is appropriately framed as whether this is one of those situations? While this amendment to the state constitution was achieved by the democratic process, the question still remains whether it is right for the majority to take away the freedom of a majority at all, much less by a democratic process such as the amendment process?

Yes. This is the right of the majority to have their vore count vs. the right of gays to get what they want.
Both are subjective opinions. A state ballot can not be overturned by leaning back and expecting the opposition to prove a negative.

Because of the facts. If the law said marriage is between a man and a woman, we wouldn't have to vote on a new law that says marriage is between a man and a woman would we? So it is the anti gay marriage folks who are trying to redefine marriage to force their opinion on everyone else.

Do you agree with me, that your side thinks it may force it's opinion on everybody else, because it's opinion is better?

Because the supreme court ruled in loving Vs Virginia that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man". As such even as a majority you are not allowed to violate them. Same as the majority was not allowed to violate the rights og blacks.

1. Gays have the same rights as straights. Just because they as a group want something else, does not mean, they are discriminated against for part of that group.
Dont confuse the right to marry with the right to get the type of marriage you want. It is not a fact that gay marriage is the same as hetero marriage.
That is an opinion, you cant force an opinion on others.
What if all white guys decided that they want the state to buy them cars as part of their marriage. Is that their right? Because apparently everyone can demand whatever positive right he wants as equal privilege to marriage.

2. The gay lobby intimidateing judges into getting their way means complete lawlessness

 

[CIAagent11]

Have you noticed that almost everyone is asking you what you're really trying to say and correcting your grammar, spelling, and definitional mistakes?

Cats can fly. that is a fact.

Your comments above are just a jumbled mess. It makes mistakes about the law, mistakes concerning logic, mistakes concerning sentence structure. I don't know what to say.

Your writing makes it obvious that you think the sun evolves around the earth.

Your grammatical errors are not a red herring. It is almost impossible to filter through the mess to determine what you are trying to say. I am not alone in this one, if you have not noticed.

It's not a red herring to invent phony arguments to distract.

You either do not know what a red herring is, or you are intentionally applying it incorrectly. In either case, you are killing your argument through your presentation, which is bad since it is a poor argument to begin with.

All french are germans. That is a fact.

 

[reverend C]

1. Gays have the same rights as straights. Just because they as a group want something else, does not mean, they are discriminated against for part of that group.
Dont confuse the right to marry with the right to get the type of marriage you want. It is not a fact that gay marriage is the same as hetero marriage.
That is an opinion, you cant force an opinion on others.
What if all white guys decided that they want the state to buy them cars as part of their marriage. Is that their right? Because apparently everyone can demand whatever positive right he wants as equal privilege to marriage.

you really have to drop this car fetish, as it is totally irrelevant to the conversation and makes you look incurably silly. the rights being discussed are the right of two consenting adults to marry. the third party of a car is not discussed.
still haven't looked up the statute to see if gays are asking for anything different than anyone else gets, huh? i don't expect you will. people believe what they like and like what they believe.

2. The gay lobby intimidateing judges into getting their way means complete lawlessness

don't forget those muslims! chaos!!!

 

[CIAagent11]

**********************************************************
Nobody is forcing churches to sanction or conduct "same sex" marriges.

At present, the church will recognize marriages of dictators, Mafia bosses, mass murderers, non Christians - even Bernie Mahoff.

Conservatives would be better off supporting a separate state definition of what constitutes a "secular" marrige and resolve the issue.

I'm not making that argument. Why do you bring it up?

 

[Allahuakbar]

Cats can fly. that is a fact.

Your writing makes it obvious that you think the sun evolves around the earth.

It's not a red herring to invent phony arguments to distract.

All french are germans. That is a fact.

Did you intend to use the word evolves instead of revolves? I think the mistake was likely unintentional, which only underscores the point.

If I can ask, how old are you?

 

[CIAagent11]

Gays not being allowing to marry someone of the same gender is discrimination based on gender, not sexual preference. The state is basing marriage on the gender of the couples! If the sex of one couple is a male, and the other is female, then they can marry (assuming other stipulations are also met).

I agree to some extent. But they are not restricted to do so because of their gender.
And the state should restrict some benefits based on gender.
You arn't saying that all benefits, that women get from the state, men should too?

Absolutely terrible example...you are comparing apples to oranges. marry. We are talking about the state allowing people the freedom to do something. Your example is one of the state actively purchasing something for a person, using and expending state resources for the purchase of a product for the person. The two are not the same. Think of a better example. A better example would be one which is the same, what would be called "parallel" to what we are discussing.

No no no. It sounding different does not make it comparing apples and oranges.
Where is the difference in the state actively paying gays marriage benefits, and the state actively making the payment for a car?
Dont say its different because semantics sound like it.

 

[NotreDame]

No no no. It sounding different does not make it comparing apples and oranges.

You are right and your remark above would make sense if I stated it was different on the basis it "sounded" different. Since I did not base the distinction on any notion of how it "sounded" then your above remarks makes little sense.

What I did say, however, is they are different because on the one hand we are talking about the FREEDOM to marry and on the other, your example, is one of where the state actively purchases and expends money on an object for a person to possess. They are two different things, because in the former we are asking the state to remove its restriction from people to do something, in your example we have the state actively providing a material object to a person. Two different things, they are not the same.

Marriage benefits are something which comes AFTER marriage. You are confusing marriage benefits conferred by the state to married people and the freedom to marry. Marriage benefits has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether someone has or should have the freedom and liberty to marry.

At this time, gays are not permitted the FREEDOM to marry each other and it is this freedom they are seeking. You bringing up some activity which occurs AFTER marriage is a red herring and an entirely separate issue. Marriage benefits, and what they should be, is an entirely separate issue from the ability, liberty, and freedom to marry in the first place. Putting the proverbial cart before the horse, as you have done here, makes no sense.

I agree to some extent. But they are not restricted to do so because of their gender. And the state should restrict some benefits based on gender.
You arn't saying that all benefits, that women get from the state, men should too?

Yes, they are being denied the liberty to marry because of gender, because their gender, if it matches the gender of their partner, precludes them from getting married! When the genders of the couple are not identical, then they are not precluded from marrying on this basis. Hence, gender is why they are being denied the liberty to marry!

Now, do you think it is possible for you to keep the two issues, which you illogically mix, separate?

The liberty and freedom to marry is ONE issue.
Whether same sex married couples should receive the same benefits as heterosexual married couples is an entirely different and separate issue, should they be allowed to marry.

In answering the last question, the answer is "yes." If same sex couples are allowed to marry, they should receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

 

[CIAagent11]

We are not talking strictly about gay marriage benefits. Marriage benefits are something which comes AFTER marriage. You are confusing marriage benefits conferred by the state to married people and the freedom to marry.

At this time, gays are not permitted the FREEDOM to marry each other and it is this freedom they are seeking. You bringing up some activity which occurs AFTER marriage is a red herring and an entirely separate issue. Marriage benefits, and what they should be, is an entirely separate issue from the ability, liberty, and freedom to marry in the first place. Putting the proverbial cart before the horse, as you have done here, makes no sense.

Fair enough. I concede to the benefits being somethings that comes after marriage.

Yes, they are being denied the liberty to marry because of gender, because their gender, if it matches the gender of their partner, precludes them from getting married! When the genders of the couple are not identical, then they are not precluded from marrying on this basis. Hence, gender is why they are being denied the liberty to marry!

Now, do you think it is possible for you to keep the two issues, which you illogically mix, separate?

Okay. But please: Everybody is denied the liberty to marry their own gender.
That cant be descrimination based on gender?!

In answering the last question, the answer is "yes." If same sex couples are allowed to marry, they should receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

Thats not what my question was about. We as a society obviously decided to not treat men and women completely equal. There are numerous examples of "different" treatment for men and women. Beginning from school projects to advance girls, to special benefist for women at work.

So we can tell a man to marry a woman and the other way around.