|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 25, 2007 10:19:08 GMT -5
In short vastly more people are in hetero sexual marriages than would be in homosexual unions. Frankly I find it appalling that a people equate the two relationships. And fortunately for America, your feelings do not equate legal grounds. Anyhow as to logical fallacy's have you looked at your own arguments? Point them out. I never claimed to be fallacy free. In fact, I encourage people to point out when I use a fallacy. Spouse abuse has only recently been made a crime against society instead of just the person requiring the person to file charges in order for the cops to do anything. Which, according to tradition, should not have happened. At least that is your anti same sex argument. One of them anyway. I am sure that a large number of people would like it to go back the other way. thankfully some people in this country stand up for what is right even when they get called names. And according to your appeal to numbers argument, majority rules, and behold, another of your arguments for banning same sex marriage equally applies here.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 25, 2007 16:48:32 GMT -5
On what legal grounds do you purpose to impose on a long standing institution a new set of rules?
Marriage has always been (at least as far as any history I have been able to find) between male and female. All the marriage laws in the land are built upon that yet you claim that they ought to be altered because of some vague legal right you assume a minority has to dictate what marriage is. That is a major logical fallacy. I can not dictate to the Catholic church what their beliefs are. I could join their church if I wished to go through the process, but it is incorrect for me to demand the right to be Catholic when I do not hold the same beliefs nor participate in the same church activities that a catholic person does. Their are a lot of similarities between my beliefs and catholics and their are differences, but I can't compel the catholics to extend their titles and privileges to someone who is not catholic.
I can not sue the US Army to force them to allow chips into the ranks. I can not have the courts compel the army to make chips officers in the army. Chips are chimps, people are people. Calling a chip a person does not make them one and insults people. Yes their are homosexual couples who are dedicated to each other etc., but it is not a marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 25, 2007 19:40:14 GMT -5
On what legal grounds do you purpose to impose on a long standing institution a new set of rules? The fact that marriage is a legal contract AND the fact that there is no legal reason to ban same sex marriage. Marriage has always been (at least as far as any history I have been able to find) between male and female. All the marriage laws in the land are built upon that yet you claim that they ought to be altered because of some vague legal right you assume a minority has to dictate what marriage is. You jump from appeal to tradition to appeal to numbers in the same sentence. yet you have STILL not presented any legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage. That is a major logical fallacy. Which fallacy is it? Just claiming it is a fallacy does not make it a fallacy. I can not dictate to the Catholic church what their beliefs are. I could join their church if I wished to go through the process, but it is incorrect for me to demand the right to be Catholic when I do not hold the same beliefs nor participate in the same church activities that a catholic person does. Their are a lot of similarities between my beliefs and catholics and their are differences, but I can't compel the catholics to extend their titles and privileges to someone who is not catholic. nice red herring. would you please be so kind as to explain how your little story above relates to the laws of the United States, keeping in mind that: 1) the US is a Republic 2) separation of church and state 3) appeal to divinity is not legal grounds 4) appeal to tradition is not legal grounds 5) appeal to numbers is not legal grounds And then perhaps explain how it relates to same sex marriage. I can not sue the US Army to force them to allow chips into the ranks. I can not have the courts compel the army to make chips officers in the army. Chips are chimps, people are people. Calling a chip a person does not make them one and insults people. Yes their are homosexual couples who are dedicated to each other etc., but it is not a marriage. Now you are merely rambling nonsense. The US armed forces is a VOLUNTEER service. One that you have to sign a legal contract to enter. Now would you please be so kind as to tell me where a chimp can enter into a legal contract.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 26, 2007 8:52:32 GMT -5
Sure, marriage (as I have said many times before) is between man and woman. You apparently think that somewhere in the laws of the land a group of people who are NOT a part of that institution can force their way in despite the significant objections of those who are married.
If you can find an amendment to the Constitution that grants a right for minorities to impose their will on the majority let me know.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 26, 2007 10:03:21 GMT -5
Sure, marriage (as I have said many times before) is between man and woman. You apparently think that somewhere in the laws of the land a group of people who are NOT a part of that institution can force their way in despite the significant objections of those who are married. Back to your comfortable appeal to tradition i see. I wonder why it is that you think it is is perfectly fine for the majority to deny rights to the minority. I bet you were in favour of NOT abolishing slavery as well. Not to mention keeping women from voting or even owning land. Those were two long held traditions that the minority "forced their way in despite the significant objections" of the majority. Might does not equal right. If you can find an amendment to the Constitution that grants a right for minorities to impose their will on the majority let me know. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal (unless they are gay); that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights (unless they are gay); that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, (unless they are gay). You are the one who keeps bringing up the Constitution. Seat belts are not once mentioned in the Constitution, so there should be no laws concerning them right? Car seats, abortion, rape, slavery, none of them are mentioned either. Since the fact of the matter is that it is those who are against same sex marriage who passed into law bans on same sex marriage with absolutely no legal grounds in which to do so. So please point to me where the Constitution says, or even hints, that the majority can deny minorities rights merely because the majority think the minority are sinning?
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 26, 2007 16:36:48 GMT -5
hum I'm sexiest and raciest. I love these ad hominem free discussions. I am not objecting the extension of any basic human rights to a group of people. As was done by slavery. However the point that you apparently don't get ( by choice or not I don't know). Is that marriage is a male and (not or) female thing. Murder is a bad thing. We have laws that punish murderers (their effectiveness is a wholly different issue). However no one would punish a person who shoots a cow under the murder laws. Murder is a human killing another human. This strangely enough is established quite well by history (GASP !!!).
Yes killing someones cow is a crime and yes the person who kills someones cow (baring an authorized slaughter house) should be punished, but we don't call it murder. And the pro cow animal rights Loby has no business trying to alter the law to include any cow that is wrongfully killed.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 26, 2007 20:17:46 GMT -5
hum I'm sexiest and raciest. I love these ad hominem free discussions. I am not objecting the extension of any basic human rights to a group of people. As was done by slavery. However the point that you apparently don't get ( by choice or not I don't know). Is that marriage is a male and (not or) female thing. Murder is a bad thing. We have laws that punish murderers (their effectiveness is a wholly different issue). However no one would punish a person who shoots a cow under the murder laws. Murder is a human killing another human. This strangely enough is established quite well by history (GASP !!!). Who said you were racist and sexist? Wasn't me. You should not try so hard to go out of your way to be offended. Though it is an atypical tactic to attempt to divert the focus of the topic. And you really should go and look up what an ad hominem is. The points you cannot/will not get, or simply choose to ignore, are: 1) marriage is a legal contract.
2) There is not one single legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage.
3) Until such time as there is a legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage, any and all bans of same sex marriage are a direct infringement on the rights and privileges of same sex couples.
4) appeal to tradition is not a legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage.
5) appeal to numbers is not a legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage.
6) appeal to history is not a legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage. Looks like you still haven't found a legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage. In fact, you are merely rewording the same old arguments. Yes killing someones cow is a crime and yes the person who kills someones cow (baring an authorized slaughter house) should be punished, but we don't call it murder. And the pro cow animal rights Loby has no business trying to alter the law to include any cow that is wrongfully killed. and right back to the animal analogies. Would you please be so kind as to present where in the USA that cows are considered the equal to people? or perhaps you can explain how your cow analogy explains some kind of legal bearing to ban same sex couples from entering into the legal contract of marriage?
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 26, 2007 21:22:10 GMT -5
"I bet you were in favour of NOT abolishing slavery as well. Not to mention keeping women from voting or even owning land. Those were two long held traditions that the minority "forced their way in despite the significant objections" of the majority."
Gee how could anyone possibly think your were calling me sexist or racist? for the sake of avoiding misunderstandings I have an idea. If you don't mean something don't post it.
Since you are apparently don't understand my use of analogies I'll stop using them.
I will state for the record that no homosexual relationship has been, nor ever could be equal to a heterosexual marriage. They are inherently unequal and It is a gross mischaracterization if not a deliberate lie to try and equate them. No amount of political double talk nor name calling by special interest bullies will alter those facts. Marriage has been and will continue to be a relationship between man and women.
You may attempt to dress up homosexual relationships out of wedlock relationships and every other pseudo marriage relationship you with, but they will be become what they are not.
|
|
jedivelariuskenobi
Guide
All life is one energy, therefore, there is no i only we, and compassion then must follow
Posts: 252
|
Post by jedivelariuskenobi on Jul 26, 2007 22:55:00 GMT -5
I will state for the record that no homosexual relationship has been, nor ever could be equal to a heterosexual marriage. They are inherently unequal and It is a gross mischaracterization if not a deliberate lie to try and equate them. No amount of political double talk nor name calling by special interest bullies will alter those facts. Marriage has been and will continue to be a relationship between man and women. Call it marriage, call it whatever you want, but what is at stake here is divine love, love between spouses, and marriage partners, it is nothing short of arrogance to claim a heterosexual monopoly on that. The good thing is that people create their own reality and that arrogance of that sort can demean and condemn gay love until time immemorial, and deny them untold rights, but it is still love, equal to heterosexual marriage, and nothing can stop love. in Love and Light, Jedi Velarius
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 26, 2007 23:40:03 GMT -5
"I bet you were in favour of NOT abolishing slavery as well. Not to mention keeping women from voting or even owning land. Those were two long held traditions that the minority "forced their way in despite the significant objections" of the majority." Gee how could anyone possibly think your were calling me sexist or racist? for the sake of avoiding misunderstandings I have an idea. If you don't mean something don't post it. I will post what i mean, just as I did with the above. Just because you choose to take offense by making it mean something other than what it means does not make it my problem. The problem is with your going out of your way to be offended. Since you are apparently don't understand my use of analogies I'll stop using them. Perhaps if your analogies were to apply to the topic at hand... If they do, I do not see it. And since you refuse to explain them and connect them to same sex marriage... I will state for the record that no homosexual relationship has been, nor ever could be equal to a heterosexual marriage. They are inherently unequal and It is a gross mischaracterization if not a deliberate lie to try and equate them. No amount of political double talk nor name calling by special interest bullies will alter those facts. And as I have already stated: And fortunately for America, your feelings do not equate legal grounds.
Marriage has been and will continue to be a relationship between man and women. At least until the feds declare same sex couples to be allowed to be married. Like it or not marriage is merely a legal contract. All the fluff and window dressing that religion adds to it is just that, fluff and window dressing. You may attempt to dress up homosexual relationships out of wedlock relationships and every other pseudo marriage relationship you with, but they will be become what they are not. Who is attempting to make marriage something it is not? Again, marriage is a LEGAL CONTRACT. Being a legal contract means the government regulates it. Separation of church and state. The only reasons offered by you to ban same sex marriage are: appeal to tradition (not legal grounds), appeal to history (not legal grounds), appeal to divinity (not legal grounds), and appeal to numbers (not legal grounds). It is not my fault that you have attached so much fluff and window dressing to the legal contract, that you now refuse to see that marriage is just that, a legal contract.
|
|
|
Post by calyrelf on Jul 27, 2007 0:35:07 GMT -5
A particular church may dictate whatever they wish concerning their marriage criteria. I take no offense whatsoever if the Catholic, Protestant or any other particular faith chooses to ban gay marriage. They are private institutions, and may choose their own rules for their followers.
A civil institution, however, should not discriminate based upon the sexual orientation of a couple, in my opinion. They should recognize civil unions with equal rights for all, whether they are gay or heterosexual. And I do believe that a gay marriage CAN be just as much of a commitment, a love, and a thing of equal value to a heterosexual marriage. Just my humble opinion.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jul 27, 2007 6:28:18 GMT -5
It lacks the procreative element and therefore can never be a fruitful bond. Therefore by definition it can never have the same level of commitment, love, or value as a marriage consummated.
|
|
jedivelariuskenobi
Guide
All life is one energy, therefore, there is no i only we, and compassion then must follow
Posts: 252
|
Post by jedivelariuskenobi on Jul 27, 2007 8:36:11 GMT -5
It lacks the procreative element and therefore can never be a fruitful bond. Therefore by definition it can never have the same level of commitment, love, or value as a marriage consummated. Wrong. There are plenty of marriages with children today, that don't have half the love being displayed by several gay couples i have come across. Also look at the loving families that many gay couples are forming now, through adoptions and other means, even by your limited definition, a gay marriage can be fruitful. Also look at the divorce rate and then tell me again that normal heterosexual marriages with children are doing well with their awesome love. in peace and light, Jedi Velarius
|
|
doug
Student
Posts: 8
|
Post by doug on Jul 27, 2007 8:44:18 GMT -5
I am a little startled by the continued references made to animals in the last few posts. I'm not quite sure how the marriage of chimps or the murder of cows relates to gay or lesbian human beings receiving the same equal treatment under the law as their straight fellows but I don't like the undertones it suggests. I'm as equal a human being as a straight man and I deserve the same respect from the state. Comparing certain groups of people to animals is not on and I think is bordering on the fascistic.
On to this issue regarding the procreative nature of the heterosexual relationship and its automatic superiority because of it: what about those straight couple who don't want to have children or a couple where one is infertile? If you are denying marriage (or any kind of marital equivalence) to gay men and women because they can't have children (although they could adopt) then you are going to have to ban it for any straight couple in the same position. I don't ever see that as governmental policy that will ever see the light of day because it is ludicrous. Just as the banning of same sex marriage is a pantomime of tradition beating logic and good sense.
I don't care if religious bodies don't want me to get married in their church or mosque or synagogue. It is their right. But the state is not in this position. As Mestemia, Calyref and I think I have pointed out this is not about religion . It is about equal treatment under the law.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 28, 2007 0:00:18 GMT -5
can anyone show me where it says in the "law". That marriage is between any two people regardless of other factors?
|
|