Gay marriage ban upheld in California

[Marokai Backbeat]

That was a very incoherent three-five paragraphs.


I do want some radical vanilla ice cream now though.

I'm partial to the plain vanilla gay.

[Lunar]

You said you live in rural Ohio, I don't think they have that flavor there.  I could mail you some from out West though.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You said you live in rural Ohio, I don't think they have that flavor there.  I could mail you some from out West though.

PM for address

[Lunar]

screw you, I got some double chocolate fancy small Japanese cute gay cake that my girlfriend didn't finish eating I think I'll just eat that and then tell you how delicious it was

[Lunar]

it was rather delicious

[Marokai Backbeat]

[Tonberry]

screw you, I got some double chocolate fancy small Japanese cute gay cake that my girlfriend didn't finish eating I think I'll just eat that and then tell you how delicious it was

Winner of the daily Funny Prize. Also, coincidentally, winner of the daily Awesome Prize. Congrats.

And Mr. Dub, Alcon's argument is sound. If fertility is a prerequisite for marriage, then it needs to be applied equally across the board, even to heterosexual couples. If you are going to grant immunity to such a requirement in the cases of certain heterosexual couples (or all heterosexual couples, as it seems to me), then you need to explain the criteria for such exemption, or failing that, ditch the claim you're making and explain what the other arguments you may have are, since this one is groundless.

[Alcon]

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.

[Alcon]

Conclusion: I want gay Asian cake, Lunar should share

[Marokai Backbeat]

Conclusion: I want gay Asian cake, Lunar should share

Get in line!

[Alcon]

Update: I bought cake.

Cons: RIPOFF ($2.49 for a small slice), clearly from mix, neither gay nor Japanese

Pros: It was cake

Overall satisfaction: A-

OK, back to debate

[Lunar]

no, stay away from debate

mine wasn't actually gay except in presentation it had like a chocolate flower on top that was yummy


can cakes get married?  discuss

[Fritz]

I've been watching these debates with great interest.  To me, it seems the central question of this debate is, which side bears the burden of proof of justification for their case?  Dubya (and Mike K, others), woud argue that pro gay marriage advocates have to justify their reasons for re-defining marriage.  Alcon (and others) would argue that anti gay marriage advocates have to justify their reasons for not allowing gays to marry.  It seems that both the Iowa and California Supreme Courts have taken Alcon's side, under their respective state constitutions.  The latest ruling from California is that the constitution was legally changed, therefore their position changed.

Though I do have a strong opinion on this issue, I'm refraining from voicing it in this post because I'm trying to analyse the logic of both sides of the argument (inspired by all the "if x is like y" stuff).  From an objective standpoint, neither side can meet the other side's required burden of proof of justication.  The anti gay marriage advocates have not proven justification for preventing gays to marry.  The pro gay marriage advocates have not proven justification for re-defining marriage.

Which side bears the burden of proof is a sticky legal question that I will not ask here.  Instead, for the sake of argument, I would ask each side to consider that you must meet the opposing side's required burden of proof.

To anti gay marriage advocates: On what grounds can you justify denying the right to get married to homosexual couples?

To pro gay marriage advocates: on what grounds can you justify re-defining the institution of marriage?

Go.

[Lincoln Republican]

Since the pro gay marriage side is now reduced to discussing nothing more substantive than gay Japanese ice cream, that clearly means that the pro gay marriage side has definitively conceded the debate to the anti gay marriage side.

Thank you for your concession.

You obviously now recognize the error of your ways, and you are to be commended for your non controversial, though unorthodox, means of conceding this debate.

I assure you I bear no ill will or hard feelings against any of you.

[afleitch]

Since the pro gay marriage side is now reduced to discussing nothing more substantive than gay Japanese ice cream, that clearly means that the pro gay marriage side has definitively conceded the debate to the anti gay marriage side.

Thank you for your concession.

You obviously now recognize the error of your ways, and you are to be commended for your non controversial, though unorthodox, means of conceding this debate.

I assure you I bear no ill will or hard feelings against any of you.

WTF?

[Edu]

Since the pro gay marriage side is now reduced to discussing nothing more substantive than gay Japanese ice cream, that clearly means that the pro gay marriage side has definitively conceded the debate to the anti gay marriage side.

Thank you for your concession.

You obviously now recognize the error of your ways, and you are to be commended for your non controversial, though unorthodox, means of conceding this debate.

I assure you I bear no ill will or hard feelings against any of you.

Lol, Alcon already responded to you, you seem to be the one conceding the debate

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

What is wrong with just have marriage legally define as a religious institution, therefore giving the religions to which marriage belongs to the right to keep it hetero, and just give homosexual couples the same rights?

If the pro-gay side would just leave marriage alone, they could than fight for other important gays rights issues (benfits, ect.), and civil unions are much more popular with the US public.

[Lincoln Republican]

Since the pro gay marriage side is now reduced to discussing nothing more substantive than gay Japanese ice cream, that clearly means that the pro gay marriage side has definitively conceded the debate to the anti gay marriage side.

Thank you for your concession.

You obviously now recognize the error of your ways, and you are to be commended for your non controversial, though unorthodox, means of conceding this debate.

I assure you I bear no ill will or hard feelings against any of you.

Lol, Alcon already responded to you, you seem to be the one conceding the debate

I have already shot down Alcon's arguments.

He is simply not willing to accept the fact.   

[Verily]

What is wrong with just have marriage legally define as a religious institution, therefore giving the religions to which marriage belongs to the right to keep it hetero, and just give homosexual couples the same rights?

If the pro-gay side would just leave marriage alone, they could than fight for other important gays rights issues (benfits, ect.), and civil unions are much more popular with the US public.

This would be acceptable... but only if government then gets its noses out of a religious institution and we abolish legal marriage altogether. Either marriage is religious, in which case government should not be involved at all (no legal recognition/rights associated with it), or marriage is not religious, in which case it can be acknowledged by the government but must then be nondiscriminatory.

No legal marriage doesn't mean abolishing legal civil unions, of course. Civil unions for all is fine with me, even if it's stupid wordplay to prefer that over marriage for all.

[Alcon]

I have already shot down Alcon's arguments.

He is simply not willing to accept the fact.   

Considering that I just demonstrated that you totally misconstrued my arguments, how do you figure that?  You can't attack scarecrow arguments, have someone demonstrate with formal logic that the arguments were scarecrows, and then pretend like you shot down actual arguments. 

Here is the post you still haven't replied to.  If you actually address it, maybe I'll share some of the cake with you.  If there's any left and all.  Have fun!

[MK]

Alcon are you hoping to change our opinion or just win the debate to show us up?

I really would like the answer to that question.

[Alcon]

Alcon are you hoping to change our opinion or just win the debate to show us up?

I really would like the answer to that question.

There are a lot of debates where I probably would, if someone was hostile enough, try to win just to show them up.  This isn't one.  I feel strongly and clearly enough about this issue that I feel like I have a moral obligation to change people's minds.  There are very few political issues I can reconcile completely with my basic morality.  This is one.

That's not to say that it's not easy sometimes to fall into counter-hostility.  When someone does something like completely ignoring my post like Winfield just did, it's tempting to just treat them like an opponent -- especially when I get the idea that that's all they want to be.  But I'm trying my best to avoid it.  Like I said, Doing the Right Thing(tm) is more important than winning a debate.  Even if it seems like Winfield is only interested in dismissing me, that could always just be frustration talking, or mutual misunderstanding.

(And while winning a debate is satisfying, even when I'm just trying to do that, I'd hope my main purpose wouldn't be showing the other side up.  It's fun to write an argument that people find convincing, with interesting rhetoric.  That's enough on its own.)

[MK]

Alcon are you hoping to change our opinion or just win the debate to show us up?

I really would like the answer to that question.

There are a lot of debates where I probably would, if someone was hostile enough, try to win just to show them up.  This isn't one.  I feel strongly and clearly enough about this issue that I feel like I have a moral obligation to change people's minds.  There are very few political issues I can reconcile completely with my basic morality.  This is one.

That's not to say that it's not easy sometimes to fall into counter-hostility.  When someone does something like completely ignoring my post like Winfield just did, it's tempting to just treat them like an opponent -- especially when I get the idea that that's all they want to be.  But I'm trying my best to avoid it.  Like I said, Doing the Right Thing(tm) is more important than winning a debate.  Even if it seems like Winfield is only interested in dismissing me, that could always just be frustration talking, or mutual misunderstanding.

(And while winning a debate is satisfying, even when I'm just trying to do that, I'd hope my main purpose wouldn't be showing the other side up.  It's fun to write an argument that people find convincing, with interesting rhetoric.  That's enough on its own.)

I see.

Maybe instead of the long paragraphs i'm going to take a different approach.

You would admit that hetero marriage has suffered in the last 50 years right?

[Alcon]

I see.

Maybe instead of the long paragraphs i'm going to take a different approach.

Didn't mean for that to be long.  Just wanted to be clear and specific.

You would admit that hetero marriage has suffered in the last 50 years right?

Yeah, largely.  Divorce rates are up.  That's not exactly 100% bad.  Back in the day, stigma against divorce was so great that some people probably stayed in abusive relationships.  But I think the decline is more than that.  People take life-long commitment too unseriously, and then they drag kids into it.

Go on.

[Ebowed]

To pro gay marriage advocates: on what grounds can you justify re-defining the institution of marriage?

The same grounds that were used to abandon anti-miscegenation laws, arranged marriage, and forced polygyny.

Marriage is a civil institution, and the government has every right to define it for its own purposes.  The idea that anyone is 're-defining' it is solely religious in nature and has no place in a policy discussion.