Drawing a Line In the Sand

Yeah, I and 44 states.

 

And I will keep pointing out that no one claimed it does.

 

You did when you claimed above that it's what prevents same-sex couples from marrying in 44 states. If it prevents those marriages, then it's a requisite.

The facts are not on your side. It isn't a requisite, and it's not what keeps same-sex couples from marrying - that would be the bigotry of people like you, enshrined in the law.

 

But... but... I'd literally have to ignore, dixon.

 

Things WILL change dixon, in due time.

 

Silly fool logic.

 

In other words, you have neither an argument to make nor a leg to stand on, so the best you can do is to label the smackdown you were just issued as "silly".

 

LOLOL!!! Silly fool logic. Ive just posted so many different cases that directly refute your assertion, there didnt seem much point in doing it again.

 

dixon, there is are good (legal) reasons why homosexual people must continue to fight (especially in our courts); but you can't see that.

 

Because none of you have had the nads to show them to me. Just again and again and again referring to their existance.

 

I could give the same advice to you. If you have a reasonable compromise or something to put on the table that hasn't already been argued and hashed out, if you have original material, than post it. If not, stop wasting MY time. It wasn't persuasive for me the first 99 times either, and the 100th iteration won't be any more so for me either.
Once again, I state the problem. People like me feel that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. That government rights and privileges are given to them because they procreate and grow the population. You are asking us, not to just extend rights, but to re-write a moral belief that has been the norm in society for a very long time. You feel that Homosexuality naturally occurs in society and to deny them the rights that heterosexual pairs have is civil inequality and a product of bigotry. You feel that any morals rooted in any type of religion is void for discussion. Every time I have asked for reasonable compromise I have been told there cannot be a compromise. A "This or That" presentation can be considered as much a fallacy as the the so-called "slippery slope" fallacy. This thread started out by people calling the slippery slope a fallacy that didn't apply here. The reason that the slippery slope is considered a fallacy is because using it supposedly rules out the possibility of compromise. So I said, alright, if the slippery slope doesn't apply here, than propose a compromise.
You have told me there is none.
The slippery slope applies here.

 

YOU are the one who started a thread in the Gay & Lesbian forum. So accusations that I'm wasting your time pretty much rate a "pfft" in reply.

I'm only too aware that people like you consider my very existence a 'problem', and use that as an excuse to create problems for me. I frankly don't care what you feel about my marriage.

Then the problem here is not the pursuit of gay equality, but your desire to retain special rights exclusively for heterosexuals. Meanwhile gay couples are pursuing the same means to create families that sterile heterosexual couples use. So I take it you agree that sterile heterosexual couples should be rewarded with marriage - even when they don't raise children, and that same-sex couples should be denied equal status for their relationships when they do.

Nevermind the many who should not be rewarded for producing children they have neither the skill nor the means to properly raise. Nevermind the privileges of legal marriage that have no tie to procreation.

It doesn't how many times your side parrots this nonsense - the facts don't change, and the fact is that legal marriage is not solely a reward for procreation, nor is procreation a requisite for having a legal marriage. But don't let the facts get in the way of maintaining a death grip on your entrenched opinion.

I don't give a fig about your subjective moral judgments.

I do, but I really don't need the likes of you telling me what I feel. It just serves as further evidence that you consider yourself superior.

As an agnostic, that's a fair assessment of my position, though again I don't need you to tell me what I feel.

Would you prefer that we lie to you to make you feel better? There is no compromise to be had, you know there isn't, so why are you wasting time asking for one?

Hogwash. The "slippery slope" is a classic fallacy outside the discussion at hand. Calling your fallacy what it is has nothing to do with whether or not a compromise is possible. But thanks for making your position look even more silly by creating such a ridiculous conflation of the two.

Indeed, there isn't.

No, it doesn't. A fallacious slippery slope is a fallacious slippery slope. You can't magically make it apply just because you don't like it when people are honest with you.

I will humor you and tell you what I consider acceptable alternatives, but I rather doubt any of them would be acceptable to you:

1) Legal equality for same-sex couples' marriages using the same terminology the government already uses for the civil recognition of a marital union. That word is marriage. Religious entities retain the right to control their religious rites, such as administering the rite of holy matrimony, and their rite of refusal for couples they deem unfit. I'd prefer removing the power of religious entities to create legal marriages as agents of the state, but I'm willing to leave things the way they are now on that score.

2) The government replaces its use of the word marriage with that of 'civil union' for everyone, retaining a single institution instead of creating a separate, parallel status for same-sex couples with inferior rights/privileges, using different terminology that marks them as targets for discrimination and isn't widely recognized.

I think it's unnecessary (and unwise) to placate troublemakers by changing the terminology, but if the argument is over the word 'marriage' (which we know it's really not), then they should have no problem accepting civil unions for themselves.

3) The government gets out of the business of recognizing marriage or any other relationship entirely. This I find problematic, and frankly not really acceptable. But it would make everyone legal equals.

Emphasis on the last two words: Legal equals. The whole reason we're having this discussion is because some people can't stand the idea of gay people being their equals, or having any status for their relationships. At best, some are willing to throw us crumbs with an inferior legal status akin to 'marriage lite', so that they can feel better about themselves while retaining their view of themselves as superior.

What is wholly not acceptable:

1) The current situation
2) Giving same-sex couples a compromised inferior status hoping that we'll shut up and go away.
3) Using legal status for our relationships as a means to weaken existing anti-discrimination laws or creating special rights for people with religious objections to having to provide services to gay people (note I've already said religious entities should be exempt regarding performing the rites of marriage). Especially egregious: The Catholic Church claiming it's being forced to close adoption agencies in states that recognize same-sex couples' unions. It's a gross misrepresentation of the situation, if not an outright lie. The truth is that they want to suck at the government teat while discriminating; in other words, to have their cake and eat it, too. They can still provide those services in those states - they just have to give up their government subsidy.

My opinion can best be summed up thus: Government and religion should remain separate for the protection of both.

 

I'm asking you to put aside your prejudices.

You want to know why there can be no compromise? I'll tell you:

You are starting with a position that judges homosexual behavior as inherently immoral. So long as you prejudge us and thereby consider yourself superior, there will be very little of value that can be said between us.

You are asking me to compromise my moral values as well. That's simply not going to happen.

So the gap between us is unbridgeable.

 

At least you admit that your position is based on fear.

I refuse to be governed by your fear.

 

I think this is the true impasse. This is the main point that should be focused on. I believe that homosexual behavior is immoral. I believe that recognizing a homosexual union at the same level as a heterosexual union makes a society immoral. I believe that anything sexual can act like a drug to the human mind. And just like any drug our bodies get used to the narcotic and desire a stronger high. That's why to me, failing morals are a slippery slope. Because an addicted person always needs a stronger high.
Let us then state the problem as it is. This isn't about civil rights. This is about the fact that I think homosexuality is immoral and you don't. Stop trying to fool the American people into accepting something that they feel is immoral on the basis that this is about civil equality. Homosexuality will not be accepted as a moral practice until the morals of the majority of society change.
Once again I state that this isn't about civil equality it is about civil acceptance. So long as people like me believe that homosexuality is immoral there is no compromise. There will only be compromise ifwe change our morals, if we change our principles, and if we change our principles.
A man is nothing if he does not have principles. A society is anarchy if it does not have principles.

 

Immoral on what basis?

 

You say that I refuse to understand you and then when I try to and submit my understanding for assessment I'm accused of feeding my own superiority and that I don't need me tell you how you feel.
I'm not trying to tell you how you feel I'm trying to paint the situation as it really is.
Everyone has the right to do what they want in their private lives. I will not deny that, freedom of choice and conscience must always remain with the individual and defense of those rights are defendable unto bloodshed. But when a homosexual pair demands to be recognized at the same level as a heterosexual pair we go beyond rights and equality. We have now entered the sphere of demanding civil acceptance. Of demanding that the government and the people of a country must accept not only the right of a private practice to be enacted but that the government and people see the acts as morally acceptable. The Gay Rights movement is demanding that we stop seeing homosexuality as immoral and accept the practice as normal on every levels. Society with a basic unit of a family with a father, a mother, and their children is trying to be fundamentally changed by the gay rights movement.
Most American feel that homosexuality is immoral. Whether or not they agree with the rights movement or not, they feel it is immoral. You feel it is not. Morals are being changed. That is my point. You have proved my point. If morals continue to be changed we will find a society with no morals. I want a society with morals, with principles, and with values. Therefore I am Drawing a line in the Sand. You can fight me if you want, but let the battle be clear. This is not about rights or equality or any of that stuff. This is about morals, principles, and values. I will fight for them, you will fight against them. That is what this battle is about.
I am not a bigot, a racist, or a stereotyping individual. I am merely a believer in principles and morals.

 

In other words, you think your personally held beliefs are superior to those of others and should not only be considered the moral standard for the entire nation, but should also be controlling of the law, which you in turn use to control others who don't share your viewpoints on what is or isn't moral.

I have no use for your misplaced sense of moral superiority. What makes you think your morals are superior to mine? What is your basis for defining homosexual behavior as immoral?

Nevermind how completely offensive the comparison of homosexuality to addiction is.

Simply because you've declared it not to be? Who died and made you God?

I do consider it to be about civil rights. I do not hold any illusion that it's likely (or even possible) that people with such entrenched thinking will change their view that homosexuality is immoral, making it all the more important for gay people to pursue the protection of their civil rights from those who would meddle - even in the most intimate of relationships: marriage.

I likewise don't share your view about the collective nature of morality. A society is still made up of individuals, each with their own set of values and views on what constitutes morality. This serves to point out a key difference between us. You see society as a collective whose morality you wish to control. I see people as individuals who have a right to conform their lives to their own values without undue interference from others or the government.

It's about you trying to interfere in my life because you're so convinced of your own moral superiority.

No deception necessary, as it is about civil equality. The pursuit of that will admittedly be easier if we can persuade people to accept that not everyone shares the same values but should nonetheless have the same rights.

Here's why we can't have a reasonable conversation on the issue: You're so wrapped up in your own opinion that you can't even begin to consider another person's viewpoint.

Once again I will point out that you're operating from a place of bias.

Thank you for finally admitting that your call for us to offer up suggestions for a compromise was nothing more than a ruse to bait people.

It's incredibly offensive for you to suggest that people who happen to disagree with you don't have principles.

 

Until they start demanding special rights for being homosexual, I was barely aware of their existance. No problem at all.

 

This is a false characterization. There is no requirement that you personally approve of a couple's marriage for it to be deserving of legal recognition. Likewise, we don't put people's marriages up to a vote. Nor should we.

You clearly want the government to be the guardian of morality. I neither trust the government to do so equitably, nor consider this its purpose. Morality is a personal and social issue, not a civil one. You are purposely conflating it with the civil issue because you know that you have no argument to make otherwise.

Nope. It's just about protecting our right to equal access to our government. You clearly are hell bent on making sure we remain marginalized not only socially but as a matter of law.

You're free to think that homosexuality is immoral, abnormal, etc. regardless of what the law says. To pretend that we're attempting to control your thoughts is ludicrous.

That's a false characterization of society. Yes, society contains such families and they're an important component of it. But society is also comprised of individuals who are single, people who have 'blended families' as a result of people with children remarrying, people who are married without children, people who adopt children, people who are raising children without a spouse or significant other, and yes - same-sex couples who value marriage and even some who are raising children.

Get over it. Or don't. But if you choose to be an obstruction to the rights of others, don't be surprised when they hold you in contempt for your part in perpetuating their inequality.

Source? A reliable, current one?

So you will admit that there are people who agree that this is a rights issue, and not one aimed at changing morality, then.

Regardless, this sounds suspiciously like a fallacious ad populum appeal. It doesn't matter what other people feel - you are not in charge of their feelings, nor are you an authority on what other people feel about this issue. So you can dispense with that false pretense. Your arguments don't gain any weight merely because you assert that a bunch of other people share your opinion.

If other people rethink the issue and conclude that a former opinion about homosexuality was mistaken, then too bad for you.

The hole in your argument is that people are free to make up their own minds. You may not like that some are abandoning the position that homosexuality is immoral, but that doesn't mean they're being forced - merely persuaded.

That's a giant slippery slope fallacy. Society and it's views on what constitutes morality are in a constant state of evolution. Sometimes almost imperceptibly slow to change, but change they do. If you don't like change, then I suggest you will have to learn to live with disappointment, because it's not going to stop on your saying so.

Change is not the same thing as abandonment. Maybe society will cease to hold the devaluing of gay people as a moral good, but that hardly means they're going to abandon all the other values they hold.

No, what you want is a society that conforms to your idea of what constitutes morals, principles and values. Once you figure out that same-sex couples marrying is not about you and your morals, I suspect you'll be much happier. Or perhaps not - maybe you'll be just like others I've encountered whose only joy seems to come from controlling others.

Big whoop.

Oh, it's exceedingly clear. You're part of the bunch that has declared a culture war targeting gay people.

It is about rights and equality - things I do consider to be a manifestation of moral principles to be valued. If you wish to fight against them, that's certainly your call.

Call yourself whatever you like, but it's pretty clear what you're really about: an exaggerated sense of your own importance and superiority that manifests itself by targeting other peoples dignity and trying to paint them as having no morals, principles or values merely because they don't share yours on this one topic.

 

Can't hide your bigotry forever... and the above proves my point.

 

Nonsense. Marriage is limited to heterosexuals because they are the only ones who procreate. Its biology not morals. On the other hand, it is the gays and their advocates who are trying to force their morals upon us. From the California case-

same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage....

a couple‟s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect. ...

same-sex couple‟s fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple. ...

because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. ....

gay individuals are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity afforded all other individuals ...

Whether or not the name “marriage,” in the abstract, is considered a core element of the state constitutional right to marry, one of the core elements of this fundamental right is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships. ....
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cms/redirect/moved-courts-schighpro.htm

 

This argument has already received more attention than it deserves. I will therefore not indulge you by being drawn into yet another pointless rehash of it.

Neither one controls the law.

Your link doesn't take me to what you've posted here. Without knowing the exact source, I'm left to question whether the meaning of terms like "dignity, respect, stature" etc. are being applied to the legal aspects of marriage here, rather than the social aspects.

Are you seriously arguing that same-sex couples and their relationships should not be accorded dignity and respect? Telling, that.

 

grasp a little reality if you can.

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY.
(a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;.......