Consenting adults

Not to mention the intellectual dishonesty of complaining that marriage equality proponents are not being "equal enough" when they oppose all of it. Apparently they cant come up with any good reason for the restrictions, so all they have left to argue with is inconsistent positions they dont even believe in.

If there is a valid reason to be against any of these things in law, then thy can continue to be restricted on that bases. If there is no valid reason, let freedom ring! If you cant come with a valid reason to be against any of it, then you are objecting without basis and asking for laws to be enshrined around that ignorant basis... I just cant see why people think this is acceptable.

 

First, you've missed the entire point. Listen to this. Suppose I said, "I'm for women's suffrage." That would simply mean I'm for the women's right to vote, right? Now suppose I said, "I'm for black suffrage." That would simply mean I'm for the right of blacks to vote, right? Now suppose I said, "I'm for universal suffrage." That should mean that I'm for the right of all to vote, right?

point being, if it were the late nineteenth century and you and I were talking, I would not - or should not - be saying, "I'm for universal suffrage" if I only mean the right to vote for white men with a certain who own a minimum amount of property. Now that I hope you've seen my point (it's understandably easy to miss or confuse), here is the example of the 'violation', so to speak, I was referring to.

See above. And heck, see nearly every successful "marriage equality" movement by state. Does it reflect an expansion of marital rights exclusively to homosexual couples? You tell me.

 

oh sheesh, more strawmen. All I pointed out here was a logical inconsistency. That I point out a logical inconsistency that a given "side" makes doesn't mean that I'm on the other side.

So I ask you, find where I objected without basis.

 

I think you missed my point, it's a logical trap. There is only two possibilities, either you're objecting without a basis, or you're objecting with one.

If you're objecting without a basis, then you've already defeated your case for legal discrimination... you're basically saying you have no reason for banning anything in law, but you want it to be banned anyway.

On the other hand, if you are objecting WITH a basis for why it should be banned in the law, then there is no point in the debate... because you apparently already agree that there is sufficient justification to ban them. The only thing you are asking the other side to do is explain why they agree (or disagree) with what you already believe, but the fact that you already agree with basis would be very telling.

So what is it, do you believe or do you not believe that there is sufficient legal justification for the bans in question? And why would the allowance of same sex marriage suddenly mean we would have to completely ignore any of these justifications for other bans?

p.s. the reason I threw out that "strawman" at you is because most often when I throw this question at people, they side step it and down answer, not even being willing to say whether or not they believe there is sufficient legal basis. I apologize if you are not among them. It was more of a tactic in debate than an intend to levy a strawman... I wanted you to call me out on it and take a position.

 

And here is the misunderstanding everyone seems to have gotten on this thread. Simply because I note a logical flaw in someone's statement does not mean that I hold a diametric view. To jump so far as that, to believe that I believe that I'm for legal discrimination.

I find clarity and accuracy of points to be more important than sides. I do because I find that "sides" just clouds people's judgement and ability to think clearly (I think this thread may be case in point). The whole time I was simply correcting a logical error that a couple people made, while generally agreeing with them on the issue in big picture. Both immediately jumped to the conclusion that I'm basically a bigot who disagrees with them on the central issue, just because I noted a logical error in their statements. Logical errors don't have sides. I can, and do, note such things even when I generally agree with people - as noted here.

The funny thing is that my phantom position has been criticized over and over here but, being a phantom position, it was never actually stated. So since you asked (sort of), here it is: I believe that the government should stop issuing marriage licenses and replace them with "civil union" licenses or whatever. The reason being that the only part of marriage that is of any of the government's business is the civil side - contract law, marital rights, blah bleh blah, and having 'marriage licenses' as opposed to 'civil union licenses' provides no real benefit, but actually creates serious contention.

And yeah, I see no reason why the government shouldn't recognize unions between siblings or multiple partners. The sibling one is pretty cut and dry - every single reason put forth for banning it depends upon "ew" or some silly equation of marriage and sex, as if siblings won't have sex if we just ban incestual marriage.

The multiple marital partners is more tricky, but it's really more of an accounting issue for taxes. An accounting hurdle is no genuine reason to deny marital rights.

 

I don't believe I call you a bigot. I did make assumptions, but I'm also willing to move past them with someone who takes the simple step of correcting it. Humans would not be capable of existing and functioning in the world if we were unable to make assumptions, but we would also be stagnant if we were unwilling to let them be challenged. I even give a special place to this kinda of mindset with the quote in my signature . I am happy to have discourse with someone who subscribes to a similar understanding, and I apologize if I got your position wrong .

Nevertheless, it is a tactic I sometimes take to try and get a quick and clear answer out of someone, although perhaps unnecessary in some cases.

We are in agreement I don't actually care what the word is, and I don't think anybody else should either... a big old debate over semantics which I despise. But for pragmatic reasons, I have no contention with changing it to anything. Let those who think they own the word have it and not have them try to enforce their view of the word in law.

I am generally skeptical of the effectiveness of these bans as well. Humans have a natural inclination to avoid incest in the first place, as evident by the fact that it is uncommon even in locations where there was no legal ban. In my view, it is the state's burden (with the help of experts who might know better) to prove that it is effective at serving a legitimate state interest. I think it calls into question the parent's ability to consent for their child's ability to enter an incestial marriage.

I certainly see some logistical challenges and issues with certain rights that don't scale easily, but I don't disagree with it in principle. In my opinion, removing marriage and replacing it with civil unions and other contracts helps to deal with this... rights that don't scale easily could be converted into simpler contracts that can only be used once (and transferred every so often), while the rights associated with marriage that scale more easily can be used multiple times. I would caution against making the system too messy since that just makes it difficult to execute and hurts everyone. This is all conjecture, though... presumably this is largely already the case as is. The rights that can't scale easily can be entered into once through marriage, and the rest via private contracts. There are probably some exceptions to this (rights that can only be acquired in marriage but could scale easily) although I can't think of any on the top of my head.

Anyway, going back to the original topic that started this, I'm somewhat sympathetic to you but I think you are using a fallacy yourself. Your objection to the use of "marriage equality" if you carry it to a logical and largely unevaluated extreme. You may be using the fallacy of equivocation, given that the meaning of that phrase can be ambiguous. You assume it means something along the lines of equality for everyone, everyone can marry at all for any given reason.... but that's your own meaning. Another one could mean "equality for similarly situated parties", which is more closely what it would mean in a legal context. "Marriage equality" doesn't necessarily mean adults can marry kids, because they are arguably not similarly situated. Similarly, the question is open whether incest and polygamy are similarly situated. Strictly speaking, if they are similarly situated, then yes they should be included in with the phrase "marriage equality"... but the question here is whether the proponents of same sex marriage must be capable of answering that question which frankly is a debate for all of society. People saying we should limit same sex marriage to avoid polygamy are not presenting a real argument.

Even if "marriage equality" is being used incorrectly, that's not the same as saying it's a logical conflict... the other word for that is a "misnomer". Some misnomers are innocent, largely the consequence of our desire to make simple catch phrases that can't accurately say everything they mean just one or two words. The less innocent use is when it's meant to create intentional confusion. Are you saying that this phrase is meant to cause confusion? I don't think I've ever seen anybody confused about what it was referring to, you certainly seem quite aware. But to make it even more complicated, the same phrase can mean different things to different people, so the answer could be.... everyone is right... and everyone is wrong. That's why debates over language are often futile, unless you can nail done one particular person's use and misuse and demonstrate the intent.

 

because disabled is not a choice

 

The fact that you believe that homosexuality is a choice is testimony to your profound and pathetic ignorance of the complexities of human sexuality. I could provide you with literature that discusses the many factors that go into determining sexual orientation but why should I bother? Your concrete, ridged and anti intellectual thought process has you convinced that it must either be genetic or a choice with no daylight in between. You have no desire to learn because to do so would undermine the basis for your bigotry.

 

Show me a link that says they found a gay gene.... I am absolutely willing to switch my position on the fact and support gay marraige if you can prove it's genetic.... like being born black, or not a choice like being handicapped, and not a choice like incest or polygomy.

 

Show me the heterosexual gene.

 

I'm not the one claiming I was born hetero

 

You seem to be unable to grasp what I'm trying to get across to you. I did not say that there was a "gay gene" I said that it was complicated and that the absence of a gay gene does not mean that it's a choice. When did you choose to be heterosexual? And what does it matter? Do you support religious rights? Is there a Christian gene?

If you are interested in learning anything you might want to start here:

I doubt that this will make any difference for someone who is so invested in hatred

 

you did say "The fact that you believe that homosexuality is a choice is testimony to your profound and pathetic ignorance"


so is it a choice, or are you born gay?

as far as govt is concerned, love is not a component mandated to marriage. Just because I can marry someone I love and while you can't, does not mean you can't marry opposite gender, one spouse, not of close relation

and since you aren't being prevented from having a ceremony to "marry" the one you love.... The only thing you want is the govt to recognize it so you can get tax breaks and whatnot....


marrying for love is not a constitutional right. Some get lucky and get to. But you don't have a right to luck.

 

Now you're just rambling on the verge of incoherence. You have just confirmed beyond a doubt what I suspected all along. You have no desire to learn and in fact fear knowledge that might undermine your basis for hatred.

 

all this, and you still haven't shown how you are not getting what I'm getting.


lol....


enjoy 2nd class citizenry

 

You get government out of it entirely, and draw the line at involuntary behavior.

 

I want THIS


our govt is BROKE, and we have more and more special interest groups with their hands out because another group has it.


noone prevents gays or straights from shaking up, finding someone to "marry" them in a private ceremony..... this is simply about wanting tax breaks that I don't think govt should be handing out as broke as we are.

my argument against gays marrying, incest marraige, polygomy is not about religious views for me, because there are plenty of examples in my religioun that supports polygomy and incest..... but we don't need every special interest group with their hand out getting a tax break. And I also don't think hetero -marriage should either.

 

As we see, even the "it's a choice" opponents of same-sex marriage fall into a trap-

Posit a State declaring that a person who is a ________ cannot marry. They are free to practice and be a ________, but they are restricted in who they can marry due to be a ______.

Those who agree with the law say "They are not being discriminated against. They are free to be a _______, and they are free to marry the people the State says they can marry who aren't a _________"

And since they consider it a "choice" not "genetic"....

now fill in the blank with "Jew" or "Republican" or "NetFlix subscriber".

- - - Updated - - -

Odd argument from a Rightwinger (Not really "odd" if you consider everything else)....

He's saying "The Government is broke.....so I don't want people getting their taxes cuts!"

Usually, they claim it's the "spending" side and they WANT more people to pay LESS in taxes? But I guess certain things over-ride their usual Reaganomics, huh???

 

no, it's like I said... I want REAL equality.... not the extras you want to "even things out"

we are trillions in debt, and run a deficit every year.... why do you think giving more groups tax breaks are a good thing?

 

Personally I favor the abolition of the difference in tax between individuals and married couples. Look for the couple who save the most on their tax bill (percentage wise) due to their marital status. Drop everyone's taxes by twice that percentage, and get rid of the differences in the tax code.

Idk, I don't understand why people find that disagreeable :S

[hr][/hr]

You could even move to a consumption tax, or use other not-so-coercive taxes like a proper road tolls system for the 21st century. Those sort of taxes simply don't discriminate, by design!

 

Horse(*)(*)(*)(*)! I addressed that with you several times? Either you have a (*)(*)(*)(*) poor memory or deficient reading comprehension skills. You are not worth another key stroke

 

no, you've said you aren't getting equal, and I've shown that you are.


Tax breaks aren't rights

 

I do think there are conservatives out there that are fine with "I have a tax break, you can't have it, nyah, nyah" Personally, I hate that we keep extending tax breaks to every tom that dicks harry... or sally.

I have personally known people who use hetero-marraige for tax breaks and green cards, etc and getting govt out of marraige altogether would fix those problems, too.


But we aren't discussing issues with hetero-marraige in this thread and noone who supports gay marraige wants to hear real reasons people don't want gay marraige.

all they hear is "blah blah, Christianity is my reason, blah blah I'm homophobic"


I can be Christian, and be against gay marriages for other reasons. My reasons to be against gay marriages are completely separate from my political reasons to be against gay marraige.

 

That's fair enough.

 

So are you the ONE Reagan conservative who does NOT want to cut taxes in the midst of defictis?????