Homosexual Marriage

[belverron]

Well, his argument is that your definition of marriage is discriminatory in nature, is it not? And it is. In an unjust way, we happen to think. While it may not exclude only homosexual relationships, it does exclude them, and whether you can find a more universal criterion than sexuality has no bearing on the justness of the practice. From my point of view, marriage is currently a method of protecting relationships of which you have been unable consistently to prove male-female couples more worthy.

[Dirty Name]

From my point of view, marriage is currently a method of protecting relationships of which you have been unable consistently to prove male-female couples more worthy.

In terms of worthiness, you have yet to list any compelling argument as to why the government should legally recognize a homosexual relationship. Your best effort to date, which you subsequently dropped, was that gay marriage might help to reduce STD's in the gay community. I continue to point out that a gay relationship is no different in the eyes of the government than any non-sexual domestic partnership where two people pledge mutual support for one another. Sexuality in a gay relationship is meaningless in the eyes of the government, but the same cannot be said of a heterosexual relationship because of the potential for offspring. Since offspring represent a compelling interest to the government, there is a substantial difference between intimate heterosexual relationships and any other type of domestic partnership.

Well, his argument is that your definition of marriage is discriminatory in nature, is it not?

I think I just demonstrated quite clearly - even going so far as to meet the criterion for proving he used a logical fallacy - that claims of discrimination on the matter of marriage are totally baseless. It would be a completely different matter if all gays, in any relationship (including opposite sex partnerships) were denied marriage benefits. But alas, they are not.

It's time you and your friends addressed the gaping flaws in your logic, and stopped tossing about baseless charges of "inequality" and "discrimination."

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name I think I just demonstrated quite clearly - even going so far as to meet the criterion for proving he used a logical fallacy - that claims of discrimination on the matter of marriage are totally baseless.

You have misunderstood me. Perhaps I should have written "discriminative"--not that you'd have responded differently. I did not say the definition of marriage is discriminatory to homosexuals. I only said it is discriminatory--as Meriam-Webster puts it, "making distinctions".

I would like to suggest that you might have better luck debating that which is not indisputable fact.

[Dirty Name]

What is your point? I have just "torpedoed" the "S.S. Discrimination." Are you going to abandon ship, patch the hole, or just continue bailing water with your little bucket?

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name What is your point? I have just "torpedoed" the "S.S. Discrimination." Are you going to abandon ship, patch the hole, or just continue bailing water with your little bucket?

Quote by: belverron Well, his argument is that your definition of marriage is discriminatory in nature, is it not? And it is. In an unjust way, we happen to think. While it may not exclude only homosexual relationships, it does exclude them, and whether you can find a more universal criterion than sexuality has no bearing on the justness of the practice.

...

Oh, and do let me recite my part again.

In terms of worthiness, you have yet to list any compelling argument as to why the government should legally recognize a homosexual relationship.

I do not believe, by your criteria, that you have offered a compelling argument for the government to recognize a heterosexual relationship, nor do I believe that you have offered a compelling argument for the government not to recognize a homosexual one, which is more to the point. Always keeping in mind that "[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Quote by: Dirty Name Your best effort to date, which you subsequently dropped, was that gay marriage might help to reduce STD's in the gay community.

I'm glad it impressed you, but I offered it more to show that child-bearing is not the only thing which qualifies as a compelling government interest than for any other reason.

Quote by: Dirty Name I continue to point out that a gay relationship is no different in the eyes of the government than any non-sexual domestic partnership where two people pledge mutual support for one another.

And I continue to point out that gays suffer for the lack of recognition when it comes to hospitals, inheritance and other issues, and that contractual agreements are not at this time a viable alternative.

Quote by: Dirty Name Sexuality in a gay relationship is meaningless in the eyes of the government, but the same cannot be said of a heterosexual relationship because of the potential for offspring.

Which statement is not supported by the fact that there are no benefits associated with marriage for having children. You are arguing on behalf of a hypothetical form of marriage. Currently, marriage protects the relationship rather than its products.

Quote by: Dirty Name Since offspring represent a compelling interest to the government, there is a substantial difference between intimate heterosexual relationships and any other type of domestic partnership.

Offspring do not; we've got plenty of people. Good child-rearing does, and no studies--however incomplete they have been--have indicated that homosexual parents fare radically differently than heterosexual ones.

[belverron]

Incidentally, I'm not going to devote as much energy to this thread as I did previously, so if you want someone with whom to spar over those points endlessly, go fish. I responded to that post for the edification of anyone who did not observe our earlier match and to remind you that your points are not, as you seem to think, unassailable. I will not do so again.

[Osborn F Enready]

Dirty Name said:
In terms of worthiness, you have yet to list any compelling argument as to why the government should legally recognize a homosexual relationship.

I say:
Because homosexuals and heterosexuals when married do ALL of the same things for society EXCEPT produce offspring of their own. They often both work, and share a residence. They are consumers, with economic needs. They contribute to society in every other way, other than birthing children. I know many married couples who WILL NEVER HAVE KIDS. Are they less worthy, or less valuable an asset to the country for the country to not SUBSIDIZE their living expenses through tax breaks and favored status? Your logic is tiring, due to its number of laps around the same point, which you still won't admit is wrong and exclusionary tactics by one group of people against another.

[mr.perfecto]

I guess it was too much to open the thread and expect to see the gay members of the Volconvo community admit they are wrong. One of the joys of being a conservative I guess. We don't have a worldview that assures us of the victory of sanity over the forces of irrationalism. The battle never ends it seems.

[belverron]

*sighs* I guess it was too much to open the thread and expect to see the conservative members of the Volconvo community admit they are wrong. One of the joys of being a fag, I guess. [garbled nonsense] The battle never ends, it seems.

[Osborn F Enready]

And I am not gay, but I support all American CITIZENS rights.

[belverron]

We love you, too, Osborn.

[Dirty Name]

Your logic is tiring, due to its number of laps around the same point, which you still won't admit is wrong and exclusionary tactics by one group of people against another.

I point out the logical fallacy of your position, then proceed to meet all the criterion for proving you are basing your argument on a logical fallacy, and the best argument you can muster is to lament the fact that "I won't admit I am wrong?"

Perhaps it's because neither you, nor Belverron, have given me any reason to do so. At least you've dropped your baseless claim of "inequality" and "discrimination," in exchange for "exclusionary tactics."

Until I see a better answer from you, I'll have to consider that a moral victory.

Quote by: Belverron While it may not exclude only homosexual relationships, it does exclude them, and whether you can find a more universal criterion than sexuality has no bearing on the justness of the practice.

What do you mean by "whether you can find a more universal criterion..."? Do you agree or disagree that the universal criterion for denial of marriage benefits is in fact "the failure to form an opposite-sex couple"? Have I not just logically demonstrated that this MUST be the case?

a more universal criterion than sexuality has no bearing on the justness of the practice.

Then please share with us how any less universal criterion could possibly have any bearing when, as you say, the 100% universal criterion, in your opinion, has "no bearing on the justness of the practice." What other criterion could POSSIBLY have a bearing except the criterion that applies 100% of the time?

You are so hopelessly biased you don't even seem to realize that your logic has been completely dismantled.

I do not believe, by your criteria, that you have offered a compelling argument for the government to recognize a heterosexual relationship, nor do I believe that you have offered a compelling argument for the government not to recognize a homosexual one, which is more to the point.

You may believe what you wish. But the facts are pretty clear:

1) The current laws governing marriage does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation
2) There is no legal basis for changing the law when it already applies equally to everyone.
3) The demands of homosexuals for "equal rights" are based on a philosophical notion of equality
4) Any philosophical equality argument must necessarily include any form of domestic partnership regardless of sexual orientation or relationship to the other partner.
5) Any literal equality comparison between gay couples and heterosexual couples ends at the issue of procreation.
6) Procreation represents a compelling interest in the eyes of the government.
7) Gay marriage/gay sexuality does not represent a compelling interest to the government. The government does not care about sexual intercourse, only the product of it.

Therefore, because there is no basis for a discrimination claim, and no compelling interest in the view of the federal government in recognizing gay marriage, one can only conclude that any such alteration would be a colossal mistake.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name Then please share with us how any less universal criterion could possibly have any bearing when, as you say, the 100% universal criterion, in your opinion, has "no bearing on the justness of the practice." What other criterion could POSSIBLY have a bearing except the criterion that applies 100% of the time? You are so hopelessly biased you don't even seem to realize that your logic has been completely dismantled.

You're too worried about why homosexual couples are excluded. I don't particularly care if the wording is discriminatory toward homosexuals. The issue is whether homosexuals have the same right to protective measures for their relationship, not why they don't have them. I happen to believe we deserve them. And we all know your opinion on the matter, don't worry.

[Jack]

I'll have to consider that a moral victory.

This is just an ego trip for you, not a debate. You are being dishonest to the purpose of this forum. You haven't presented a new thought in a hundred pages.
But it's still fun to look in once and a while to see if anything new has been presented.
It hasn't.
Ta.

[Dirty Name]

This is just an ego trip for you, not a debate. You are being dishonest to the purpose of this forum. You haven't presented a new thought in a hundred pages. But it's still fun to look in once and a while to see if anything new has been presented. It hasn't. Ta.

Interesting observation. And yet, you could easily END my "ego trip" if only you could counter my arguments. Now I've demonstrated why gays have no claim to "philosophical equality" in marriage, why they can't lay claim to literal equality in marriage.

What else remains?

The only reason this "isn't a debate" is because you have nothing left to argue. As for presenting a new thought, WHY SHOULD I? This forum isn't a place where I just bounce new concepts off of you. We are debating whether or not something is a good idea. If you cannot refute the logic of my argument, why would I change my method?

Finally, the fact that I am still here, still presenting the same argument is proof positive that no one has been able to counter it. If I raised a weak point, and someone showed me a flaw in it, you can bet I would drop that argument right away. But nobody here has been able to demonstrate any flaw in my logic. Read your own post, and tell me how constructive that is. It's laughable how you've been reduced to attacking me personally instead of my argument. You call me dishonest, and don't even cite any example.

Run along, unless you have something to add to the discussion.

[Dirty Name]

You're too worried about why homosexual couples are excluded.

I could claim that you're too worried about why homosexual couples aren't.

[Osborn F Enready]

Dirty Name said:
Until I see a better answer from you, I'll have to consider that a moral victory.

I say:
Consider it whatever you want.

Nixon considered himself a Great American President too, but we all knew the truth.

The truth of opinion will come from those that read the thread, and seeing as how you have proven your lack of grounding in reality, chances are those opinion will be kept to themselves, since you feel compelled to claim victory if you are the last one to post, and they know it will just end up another circle jerk where many try to show few the errors of their ways.

I am content, as I know I made my case, and presented it, only to have it refuted with more opinion and denial.

Let the people read and decide for themselves where they stand.

[UmSamir]

So far, the majority say civil rights issue.

To get a better guage of how people feel, a simple for or against would give a more pro/con illustration.

IMO, adding the "distraction" and "redefinition" choices muddies the water and distracts from the core feeling of the voter in the poll.

We have the opportunity to explain our answer here, after all.

[UmSamir]

Absolutely, Dirty Name. If #1 were not the case...

1) The current laws governing marriage does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation

There would be no rush to vote for change in the states' and the federal constitutions by the "concerned" "Christians", who want only to "protect" the "sanctity" of marriage; as if it were invented by a particular god or other.

They don't seem to realize that many civilizations held rituals to join couples together long before the Christian god came along and supposedly made it all "holy".

[Jack]

you can bet I would drop that argument right away.

There is no proof of that anywhere.

Run along

When you own the forum, I'll be obliged to follow your edicts. Until then, you're stuck with having to put up with whoever wants to reply to you.