Gay marriage ban upheld in California

[Lincoln Republican]

Your very sad attempted refutation of my argument is actually what is "bunk", as you put it.  At no time did I ever state that the ability to procreate is a prerequisite for a couple entering into the bonds of matrimony.  All I ever stated was that one of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world.  That statement is fact and is irrefutable.  At no time did I ever state that one must have the ability to procreate in order to enter into the bonds of matrimony.

I'll explain it for you again, in case you didn't understand the first time.  Any heterosexual couple is eligible to enter into the bonds of matrimony.  This in no way detracts or disproves the fact that one of the purposes of marriage is to procreate.

If this is only one purpose in some marriages, why did you keep bringing it up as if it were an absolute test?

Your only presented arguments have been:

1. Gays can't have kids. -- Yeah, but as you say, that shouldn't be enough to restrict marriages; it's only one part of marriage.

2. It isn't traditional. -- An Appeal to Tradition Fallacy, unless you can prove why changing the exclusivity of the tradition is more damaging than keeping it.

3. It causes societal damage -- No evidence offered.

How does that add up to a sound argument?

Now, onto what you are attempting to sway the masses with.

What you are attempting to do is to use the fact that many heterosexual couples are either incapable of procreating or simply do not procreate, and use this as a justification for gay marriage.  But that in no way is justification for the redefinition of marriage, simply because gays have something in common with infertile couples, i.e. they do not procreate.  Big deal, they have this in common with some heterosexual couples, therefore, by your logic, since they have this in common with some heterosexual couples, they should be allowed to redefine marriage.  This is where your argument falls apart.  Redefining marriage is not warranted simply because gay couples, along with infertile heterosexual couples, do not reproduce.   

I was rebutting your argument, not making my argument for gay marriage.

My argument has been laid out here and elsewhere.  The most recent instance I could find was in a conversation with Keystone Phil (especially 1,https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=95735.msg1989787#msg1989787).

Accepting gay marriage, just because it has exactly one parallel with heterosexual marriage, is just as illogical as opposing gay marriage just because it lacks exactly one.

You may not be a radical leftist, a radical gay, a plain-vanilla leftist, or a plain-vanilla gay, but you are most certainly a persistent advocate of gay marriage, which is the other category I listed of those who equate bus segregation with gay marriage.  Therefore, you fit very well into the category who equates racial segregation issues with the gay marriage issue.  Racial segregation issues have nothing at all to do with the gay marriage issue.  The right to ride anywhere on the bus is a human right.  Marriage is a privilege, not a right.  Marriage is not a rights issue.  But I know that is extremely difficult for pro gay marriage advocates such as yourself to understand.

An analogy draws a poignant parallel.  My claim is that the gay marriage issue draws parallels to bus segregation and they share a common reason for offense.  Unless "race" and "race" alone are the reasons you thought that segregated busing was offensive, I can appeal to the other reasons without invoking racism itself.  

I'm not arguing that opposing gay marriage is racist.  I'm not even invoking race!

That is how analogies work.  You argue that:  a is y *because* it has property x; therefore b is also y if it has property x.

You do not say (as you have taken my argument): a is y because it has property x; and b has all properties of a, including y and z.  That makes no sense.

You do not say (as you have taken my argument): a and b share at least one property; a is y because it has property x, and therefore b (sharing some unspecified property) is also y.  That makes no sense either.

You do not say (as you have etc. etc. etc.): a and b share property x, therefore a and b are the same thing.

I have argued none of these things, so there's no reason to take offense.

By the way, do you really think "the right to ride anywhere on a bus" was accepted as a human right back then?  According to whom?  Certainly not prevailing popular American sentiment at the time.  I doubt more than a tiny portion of Americans at the time would have seen it that way.

The onus  is on gay marriage proponents to prove the positive effects that granting overall gay marriage will have on society, not simply why they want marriage.  We have all heard the standard self centered gay arguments for gay marriage.  The onus is not on gay marriage opponents to prove the negative effects this will have on society. 

Gay marriage advocates have made no case, and presented no studies, what effect gay marriage would have on religious freedom.

About the only case gay marriage advocates have made is they want to have marriage bestowed upon them, but have not justified it, except to argue that it is their right.  It is not their right.  Marriage is an institution, and is defined as the union of one man one woman.  They want to redefine this meaning, but have presented no compelling arguments why this should be done.

Gay marriage advocates want to take all of the benefits of marriage without accepting any of the responsibilities for proving to society why they should be granted it.

[Lincoln Republican]

The onus  is on gay marriage proponents to prove the positive effects that granting overall gay marriage will have on society, not simply why they want marriage.  We have all heard the standard self centered gay arguments for gay marriage.  The onus is not on gay marriage opponents to prove the negative effects this will have on society. 

I have presented a positive benefit -- on the gay community, a subset of society.  The onus is therefore on you to prove that some detriment counterweighs that.

Gay marriage advocates have made no case, and presented no studies, what effect gay marriage would have on religious freedom.

What variable are you studying, exactly?  Churches currently reverse the right to marry, or not marry, whomever they want.  A Catholic Church is not legally obligated to marry a non-Catholic.  I would not support changing that law.

As it stands, churches that support gay marriage cannot marry gays in a government-sanctioned way.  In states where gay marriage is legalized, churches that oppose gay marriage are allowed to not marry gays.  This will increase the religious freedoms of pro-gay marriage churches and have no effect on the others.

I don't know what else you'd be asking.

About the only case gay marriage advocates have made is they want to have marriage bestowed upon them, but have not justified it, except to argue that it is their right.  It is not their right.  Marriage is an institution, and is defined as the union of one man one woman.  They want to redefine this meaning, but have presented no compelling arguments why this should be done.

Gay marriage advocates want to take all of the benefits of marriage without accepting any of the responsibilities for proving to society why they should be granted it.

It would remove the implicit understanding that gay marriages must be "separated" from heterosexual marriages, because to include them under the word "marriage" would taint heterosexual marriage somehow.

You have dodged my bus analogy many times under the guise that it involves race.  My point is that the bus analogy is offensive because, without empirical evidence, one group was disallowed inclusion in an institution because they would have a "pollutant'" effect on that institution.  I spent my entire last post explaining that in detail, and you completely ignored it.

Do you, or do you not, find the bolded point offensive?  Why is that OK with sexual orientation if it isn't with race (other than because one is a different thing than the other)?  How do you substantiate your previous claim that "riding the bus anywhere you want" is an objective right, but "marrying a consenting individual you love" is not?

As to the bolded point, I do find it offensive, to this extent, that some were denied access to certain parts of the bus, an institution, as you call it.  But what you fail to specify is the purpose or end result of changing or correcting this inequality.  The purpose in correcting this obviously unjust practice was to correct an inequality because of the race of the individuals being denied access to the front of the bus.  Because they were black they could not ride in the front of the bus.  They had to ride in the back. 

The purpose or end result proponents of gay marriage are trying to achieve is to change the definition of marriage.  They are not trying to correct a racial inequality.

Now, I know that gay marriage proponents will find a remarkable similarity in the two, however, I disagree.  One was to correct an inequality because of the race of a person.  The other is to change the definition of marriage. 

Your argument falls apart because you know that blacks can in fact marry, so blacks are not being discriminated against by the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. 

[Lincoln Republican]

As to the bolded point, I do find it offensive, to this extent, that some were denied access to certain parts of the bus, an institution, as you call it.  But what you fail to specify is the purpose or end result of changing or correcting this inequality.  The purpose in correcting this obviously unjust practice was to correct an inequality because of the race of the individuals being denied access to the front of the bus.  Because they were black they could not ride in the front of the bus.  They had to ride in the back. 

The purpose or end result proponents of gay marriage are trying to achieve is to change the definition of marriage.  They are not trying to correct a racial inequality.

Now, I know that gay marriage proponents will find a remarkable similarity in the two, however, I disagree.  One was to correct an inequality because of the race of a person.  The other is to change the definition of marriage. 

Your argument falls apart because you know that blacks can in fact marry, so blacks are not being discriminated against by the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. 


You're still missing the point of Alcon's argument. He's not trying to say that race and sexual orientation are the same thing. However, he is pointing out the similarities between the Black Civil Rights movement and the Gay Rights Movement. These movements are both about giving equal rights to a persecuted minority and doing away with "separate but equal" institutions. Since our country gave rights to blacks, it only follows that rights be extended to homosexuals, unless there is a legitimate reason to continue suspension of these rights. Simply saying "because it's marriage" is not a valid argument.

Those examples you posted are horrible and are good examples of censorship. However, they don't accurately characterize the Gay Rights Movement. I won't point to Conservatives who have murdered people for their sexual orientation, because I know that these situations are outliers and don't characterize the anti-Gay movement, so please don't do the same thing.

Also, using phrases like "twisted lifestyle" are perfectly fine in arguments, but in respectable debate, please use rational criticism, not attacks.

I do not equate civil rights arguments with gay marriage arguments.  I have made that point crystal clear on several occasions.  I have as well stated my reasoning in the quoted post.

To be clear, I absolutely condemn anyone of any sexual orientation bringing physical harm to anyone of a different sexual orientation, or for that matter bringing harm to anyone of the same sexual orientation.

[Lincoln Republican]

Edit: K, this is what I meant by the oppositionalism thing.  Sorry if this is too brusque, but dude, don't go all copy/paste on me.  It makes me go all Internet-Incredible-Hulk

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is it offensive because of race?  Because race is an unchosen property?  And yet all indication is that people cannot consciously choose sexual orientation. 

Even if it weren't an unelected property, why does that make it less offensive if harm can't be proven through empirical means?  For instance, say we passed a law sending all men with long hair to the back of the bus.  Maybe you see segregation as acceptable, even if there isn't proven harm, as long as the property is social instead of biological.  But your current opinion appears completely arbitrary.

Your argument falls apart because you know that blacks can in fact marry, so blacks are not being discriminated against by the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. 

No.  Let me repost my argument:

You have dodged my bus analogy many times under the guise that it involves race.  My point is that the bus analogy is offensive because, without empirical evidence, one group was disallowed inclusion in an institution because they would have a "pollutant'" effect on that institution.  I spent my entire last post explaining that in detail, and you completely ignored it.

Lunar's addendum:

Alternatively, in order to get away from arguments about the practicality of completely equal drinking fountains -- what if a different-sex marriage involving one or more African-Americans had to be called a "civil union" as prescribed by a large legislative majority as well?

Can you explain what specific claim or analogy is refuted by what you posted?  The answer is none.  You are attacking a strawman.

Now, allow me to elucidate those following this discussion of some of the extreme measures taken by pro gay advocates in furthering their twisted, radical agenda.

...

I checked Google, and you copy-and-pasted that link from a copyrighted work.  Plagiarism is your business.  But copying and pasting instead of researching and arguing from knowledge is a waste of both of our time.  In order for your list to mean anything, you'd have to prove: 1) It's a fair and objective representation of facts; 2) It would be the inevitable result of expanding marital rights to gays.  You haven't provided any evidence for #2.

As for #1...I did your research for you.  I plugged in a random event from your list to Google to check to see if it represented reality well enough.  That Massachusetts father "jailed after requesting that his 6 year old son's school notify him when it discussed homosexuality or transgenderism"?  Not so.  He was actually jailed for criminal trespass and misdemeanor harassment.  He just happened to commit those crimes against the school district, in an attempt to martyr himself.  Do you support legalizing trespass and sub-felonious harassment?

More seriously, let's apply your logic.  Am I now to believe that, if the anti-gay marriage side got their way, that people would be allowed to trespass and harass to express anti-gay sentiments?  No, I'm not that stupid.  And I sincerely doubt you are, either.  It begs the question of why you even bothered with the copy-paste.  If you care so much about your moral convictions, maybe you should spend five minutes researching them.

Dude, settle down.  Hysterics is so passe.

I believe we have hashed this race/sexual orientation comparison to death.  We disagree, it's that simple.

I have addressed your bus analogy headon, by explaining in very clear terms what the end goal is, the one to achieve racial equality, in this case to ride in any part of the bus, the other to change the definition of marriage.

No, I do not find segregation acceptable, in any racial sense.  I do find it acceptable, however, to have marriage reserved as the union of one man and one woman.  Apparently, anywhere between 54% and 57% of Americans find that view of marriage as acceptable as well, at least what I hear on the TV news programs.  That would include, by the way, the last three Democratic Presidential nominees, Al Gore, at least as of 2000, John Kerry, and Barack Obama.