Gay Marriage

[lawcat]

The heart of our theory of government, however, is ultimately one of assumed liberty. Our highest laws proscribe, for the most part, not what is forbidden to people, but what is forbidden for government to forbid to people. .

 

Therein lies the fundamental problem of the this thread and the posited arguments for same-sex marriage: The misunderstanding of the government and the civil liberties.

 

A sweeping statement that all liberties are assumed is wrong, and the call for a change of government, because you are not at liberty to do many many things in your State-- specifically because liberties are not assumed.

[InfiniteNow]

Therein lies the fundamental problem of the this thread and the posited arguments for same-sex marriage: The misunderstanding of the government and the civil liberties.

 

A sweeping statement that all liberties are assumed is wrong, and the call for a change of government, because you are not at liberty to do many many things in your State-- specifically because liberties are not assumed.

 

Well... I'll be dipped in **** and rolled in kitty litter. Yet another strawman.

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you... that there is gambling in this here establishment. :confused:

[lawcat]

Well... I'll be dipped in **** and rolled in kitty litter. Yet another strawman.

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you... that there is gambling in this here establishment. :confused:

 

Please explain the straw man, because I do not follow.

[InfiniteNow]

Please explain the straw man, because I do not follow.

 

Thank you. That was a good question. Here is the answer.

 

You stated that others were making sweeping statements that all liberties are assumed. That is a false representation of what others are actually stating in this discussion, ergo, you are arguing against a "straw-man" and claiming "wrong" a position never actually put forward by thread participants.

 

That was easy.

 

 

 

A sweeping statement that all liberties are assumed is wrong

[lawcat]

STRAWMAN

 

Statement: The Board of Education should not purchase books for physics.

 

Strawman: I disagree: The Board is stingy. (no opinion about statement; rather, a new premise, and attack on the actor--the Board)

 

Not strawman: This statement is wrong (opinion about statement). It is wrong because it is sweeping. It is sweeping because it is unconditional: it regards all "physics books" without condition. Because the Board is required to purchase some physics books, then the statement is also wrong and sweeping. Hence: this sweeping statement about all physics books is wrong.

 

 

NOT STRAWMAN

 

The heart of the theory of government is ultimately one of assumed liberty.

 

Not strawman: That statement is wrong (opinion about statement). It is wrong because it is sweeping. It is sweeping because it is unconditional: it regards "liberty" without any condition. Because it is unconditional about liberty, it is sweeping. Because all liberty is not assumed, then the statement is also wrong. Hence the statement is sweeping and wrong. Hence: This sweeping statement that all liberty is assumed is wrong. No strawman. Just pure logic.

[lemit]

Infinite,

 

Congratulations on the recognition of the Strawman. I would have missed it.

 

--lemit

[lawcat]

No more mention of man and woman, nor of husband and wife or anything incompatible with marriage of homosexuals; since then they have been marrying unhindered.

 

This post tells us what is allowed on the forum. :eek2:

 

 

Further, I read the initial post and I find it does not start with mostly arguments that attack or refute current marriage, it is not an "Attack on hetero marriage" at all; this is called the strawman fallacy. .

 

An assertion that the initial post is "something--an attack" is a proposition concluded or inferred from the premise. It is a conclusion. A conclusion is "a proposition concluded or inferred from the premises of an argument." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conclusion. A conclusion can not be a fallacy. A conclusion is either "true" or "false." "A fallacy is an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy :Alien: In addition, you find nothing that refutes current marriage in the initial post, yet the initial post starts with:

 

I have several arguments in regards to gay marriage, pinpointing specific ideas that I have heard opposing such an arrangement.

[Qfwfq]

In order to be compliant with the requirements of this forum, lawcat, you should get your semantics clear and well defined as well as getting logic straight.

 

Your reply to what I said about Spain is not only non sequitur, there is a total lack of nexus. I stated a fact. Look it up. In Spanish marriage law, words like man and woman were replaced with person and those like husband and wife with spouse. As soon as the change came into effect, homosexual couples were marrying, legally and validly. Unless you mean that stating true facts should not be allowed on this forum, my statement implies squat about what is allowed on this forum.

 

Also you should really look up the true meaning of strawman fallacy which is not what you are purporting. It means arguing against something distinct from what the opponent said, trying to make it pass for being what the opponent said, or implying they meant it as a consequence.

 

And then, danieyankee, after each point, proceeds to raise cross-rebutal to rebutals. There are no well thought out proponent arguments in the initial post. The initial post is a fight against hetero marriage, not an advocacy for gay marriage.

 

In this whole thread, there is not a single argument for gay marriage that ties the nature of gay relationships to State, other than cross-rebutals to State's defenses.

 

This thread has not been about: Constructing gay marriage as valid and good for the State, as a plaintiff-proponent. All arguments have been: To deconstruct hetero marriage as invalid, and wrong, with poking holes, by raising cross rebutals. Yet, hetero marriage remains valid everywhere. That is illogical ab initio. This thread is therefore, not about gay marriage. This thread is about attacking hetero marriage.

To the ordinary Joe, where you say "hetero marriage" means those marriages in which the spouses are of opposite sex. Therefore, saying "Attack on hetero marriage" is understood to mean an attack on such marriages. The initial post does not attack such marriages, it only attacks typical arguments against other marriages, those in which the spouses are of like sex.

 

Therefore, your statement was a strawman. It would not be a strawman to say that the initial post is an attack on arguments against homosexual marriage. At the most, one might say "Attack on hetero-only marriage laws" except that, strictly, it is not actually attacking marriage laws but the arguments against changing them; more appropriate would have been: "Attack on marriage laws being hetero-only". And that comes within the meaning of strawman fallacy: stating or implying that the opponent's point was other than their intent.

 

Now, you must avoid argumentative fallacies and you must stop annoying people.

[lawcat]

Now, you must avoid argumentative fallacies and you must stop annoying people.

 

Got it.

 

Can you tell me what is this in moderators eyes:

 

Larv completely reasonably says:

 

Hey, I’m not in the business of interpreting the Constitution; that’s why we have supreme courts in this constitutional republic. .

 

Then Infinite says:

 

Your response is total bullshit, and nothing more.

 

. . .

 

Now . . . you are telling me that you are incapable of interpreting the constitution?

 

do not respond that you're "not in the business of interpreting the constitution" or "studying SCOTUS case law."

.

 

What is this? Can I not say that this is intimidation and interrogation, and very hostile and rude?

 

____________________________

 

Next, Infinite asserts "traditional definition":

 

"traditional definition" position has been demonstrated false .

 

I reply:

 

 

No it has not. Traditional definition is valid everywhere i nthe world. heteros can marry.

.

 

Then Modest comes in:

 

Can you please define "traditional definition [of marriage]".

~modest

 

Is this not unreasonable, since we all here, and the whole wolrd knows what traditional marriage we are talking about--the average Joe. How does "please" temper the unreasonabless?

 

____

 

Then,

 

Modest says,

 

There certainly are places in the world where . . . (A marriage can be contracted by two people of different or the same sex).

 

and then modest follows with:

 

 

A valid definition cannot be "between man and woman" if the definition includes "two people of different or the same sex".:Alien:

 

Is this not illogical, so I say:

 

 

Definition 1: Oranges are blue or red. (marriage is between opposite or same sexes)

 

Definition 2: Oranges are blue (marriage is between opposite sexes).

 

Does def 2 satisfy def 1? Is def 2 valid under def 1, or is it "false"? It is of course valid.

.

 

Then, Modest coms with:

By this reasoning a definition of marriage valid anywhere in the world is:

"A state-recognized union between two people

of the same race

."

That, by the same method of reasoning, is a valid definition of marriage.

 

Is this not straw man and illogical? Yet his own assertion mentions race nowhere:

There certainly are places in the world where . . . (A marriage can be contracted by two people of different or the same sex).

Nor does mine.

[CraigD]

… This thread is therefore, not about gay marriage. This thread is about attacking hetero marriage.

I’ve not gotten the impression that any post in this thread has attacked straight (best, I think, to keep our dichotomous terms paired, eg: gay/strait, homo/hetero) marriage. Given that many, perhaps most, of the participants in this thread, myself included, are married heterosexuals, I find it hard to imagine we’d be very sympathetic to an attack on an institution we’ve chosen to make a central part of our lives.

 

Lawcat, can you point out one or more posts that you believe attacks straight marriage – that is, asserts that the marriage of a male and a female hurts individuals or society, or that people of opposite sex should not be allowed to marry?

[InfiniteNow]

Then Infinite says:

Ah... A classic selective edit. Beware the ellipsis, people. Beware the ellipsis.

[steveborman]

I am gay, not by choice, but by birth. I have never had a recollection of wanting to be anything else but gay. I had a partner for 6 beautiful years and he was killed in a motorcycle accident, and I know today that if he was still with me, we would definitely be married somewhere.

The love we had was ever bit as loving and passionate as a heterosexual marriage.

[modest]

[yawn]

 

Lawcat, "A community recognized union between man and woman" is not a valid *definition* of marriage everywhere in the world. "Man and woman" is a necessary and sufficient condition in that intensional definition. The definition is invalid in areas such as the Netherlands where: "A marriage can be contracted by two people of different or the same sex".(*)

 

Perhaps you just meant to say it is a valid *example* of marriage anywhere in the world, or that it is a valid *form* of marriage anywhere in the world, but then you went on to defend your definition as valid in areas where it is clearly not. "Man and woman" can't be a necessary condition (as your definition establishes) in an area where "man and woman" is explicitly NOT a necessary condition.

 

~modest

[Larv]

Lawcat's idea that my initial post was an attack on heterosexual marriage is completely false; I did not attack heterosexual marriage, I attacked the arguments used AGAINST gay marriage. Heterosexual marriage is not a problem; it is the fact that heterosexual marriage is the only type of marriage that is incorrect.

i still don't understand why there can't be heterosexual marriages (which is redundant like "tooth dentist") and gay domestic partnerships. If everything else is equal what's the big problem?

 

My impression of this thread is that those who demand "gay marriages," when gay domestic partnerships are entirely adequate to serve all of their legal needs, are asking for too much. They want to change the traditional meaning of the term "marriage," which is an affront to many heterosexuals. The straights can't explain why that harms them any better than the gays can explain how they would be harmed if they couldn't use the term. As such, no one's right or wrong on this matter until a supreme rules on the constitutionality of either DOMA of gay marriage. THEN we will know, and THEN we can sort out those who want to live in a constitutional republic from those who don't.

[Turtle]

i still don't understand why there can't be heterosexual marriages (which is redundant like "tooth dentist") and gay domestic partnerships. If everything else is equal what's the big problem? ...

 

that is because you, like lawcat, find the idea of gay disgusting and repugnant. you hate it, & you hate it bad. say it's not so convincingly, or bite your tongue.

[lawcat]

[yawn]

 

Lawcat, "A community recognized union between man and woman" . . . .

 

~modest

 

Modest, give it up. Both of us are sufficiently intelligent to understant that for your argument to be true, it would have to be true that I asserted "only" in the traditional definition, and I have not done any such thing.

 

But, there is finer point here. First, you asked me to give you the traditional definition, and then, with the definition I gave you, you said that it is not valid in Holland. Ok. But, you did not refute that my definition was a traditional definition. Correct? It is plain that it is, since we must change it to have a new law in U.S.

 

So, let's say that traditional definition is: "community recognized union of a man and a woman." The key in the definition is: (1) some entity with power to decide--a State, and (2) subjects--people. Therefore, inherent in the definition is (1) what two people can marry, and (2) their relationship to the State.

 

Here, the proponents of same-sex marriage are arguing for a change of (1) what two people can marry; but, on the grounds that (2) relationship of the State to opposite sexes is currently wrong. So, (1) is the conclusion, and (2) is the premise. In essence, if (2) is wrong--the relationship, then (1) must be wrong. Here. first, it seems, it is imperative that the relationship of the State to opposite sexes is destroyed, so that new (1) two people, can fit the new relationship.

 

But, if (2) relationship of the state to opposite sexes is destroyed, then opposite sexes do not enjoy same protections, and must be governed by the definition and the relationship that suits (1) which is not opposite sexes, but some other group.

 

To me that seems like an attack, rather than an argument for. To me, an argument for same-sex would look like this: (1) we are same-sexes, and (2) this is how we are related to the State.

 

Or, maybe the argument is: same sexes are the same as opposite sexes, therefore their relationship to the State is the same. I can not agree with this, because to me same sexes are not equal to opposite sexes by definition. Male-male bond is not equal to male-female bond, or female-female bond by definition. And, this goes back to the arguments that we've had in the past 23 pages here.

 

I would like to see an argument that female-female bond is equal to male-male bond, so that we can conclude that they can be called same sexes for marriage. Then, how are same sexes equal to opposite sexes for marriage under the current relationship to the State. Or alternatively, how are same sexes related to the State under some different relation.

[lawcat]

Lawcat, can you point out one or more posts that you believe attacks straight marriage – ?

 

CraigD, I must refuse for two reasons. One, Qfwfq has already ruled on this issue and has found that I was wrong and that this post does not attack hetero marriage. Second, I do not believe that I could convince you, and therefore I choose not to waste time. For those reasons, I concede your point.