Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 71
  1. #41
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    82
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    The people want to distinguish marriage (legal union of man and wife) from every other kind of relationship.
    1) There is no reason why the people can't do this or shouldn't do this.
    2) Creating a new definition/contract is up to the relationship that is trying to get acceptance, not redefining the meaning of words contained in another contract.

    This is not an argument against giving gay marriage a legal title, only against it taking the title of another legal status.
    They may as well be arguing to change the meaning of the words in "Lease agreement", "Incorporated", etc. in order to include "the union of the two same sexed people".

    There is no force involved. Homosexual relationships are not illegal. They can go to a church and have a church leader "marry" them. The state simply has no laws against this. In fact, not calling such a thing a kind of "marriage" is offensive to me. What the fight is about is not about marriage, it is about lobbying for a legal TITLE and certain legal social benefits. I emphasis "title" because if they were were pushing for legal status, they would be happy with any title that status is given.
    Actually, the gay marriage issue comes down to one factor: the status of immediate family.

    Currently, there are two ways to become immediate family to a person of no blood relation: marriage and adoption. When a woman marries a man, she becomes his immediate family, and that protects her. She can make medical decisions for her husband if he is incapacitated, she isn't charged an inheritance tax for assets left to her (should her husband die), she receives survivor's benefits, etc. Gay people tried to compromise by accepting civil unions, and then they found out that it didn't give all the rights, privileges, and protections that marriage affords. It does not make them "immediate family."

    If civil unions had been identical to marriages, I doubt there would have been such a public outcry for gay marriage. As it is, thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, the issue of gay marriage will be heard in the Supreme Court. Had the government remained indifferent, the issue would have played out for years longer.
    It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

  2. Likes Sigfried liked this post
  3. #42
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What it is meant to relay is that Gays have a right to something they have no right to, and trying to justify it with a premise that is inconsistent, or doesn't apply in all situations. Specifically when it comes to names. You have tried to turn a name into an effect, or try to argue that the name carries an inherent effect.
    All of which is fallacious and I'm continuing the refutation of them.
    And yet you did not respond to my last argument on the issue (post #34). Well, here it is again:

    It is asking for shared access to a legal status that carries a particular perception. Therefore the legal status is more desirable than an alternative name that does not carry that perception. And wanting something is a valid legal reason to be granted something. It doesn't mean that what is desired must be granted but the denial of that thing must have a good reason behind it and the reasoning must be applied without prejudice based on sexual orientation. In other words both gays and straights desire access to the term "marriage" because, in part, of the perception associated with it. The government is not really obliged to give anyone access to the term - as I believe you've argued and I never really objected to, the government perhaps should say "It's not a good idea for us to be in the marriage business, so we're not going to recognize marriage". But IF the government does agree to recognize marriages, then it morally has to accept all applicants based on the reason that those people want it with the only exception being those that it has a good reason to deny (such as children).

    What I'm saying is that while you may come up with arguments against the government recognizing marriage, if you don't apply it to gays and straights equally, then you are violating my premise.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So interracial marriage wasn't an effect?
    It didn't legally effect the marriages that came before it.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Get this strait. It wasn't an analogy, it was an example of words and meanings mattering in Contracts. It was an example contradicting your stance that as long as it refers to the same person terms are legally interchangeable.
    But I was talking specifically about the term "marriage". Whether changing some other legal term or definition will have an effect is irrelevant. So I'll admit you contradicted a straw man.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    They are not, you are wrong, I have supported why you are wrong. Now your left to say Na-huh, over and over until you bore everyone into agreeing with your position.
    Apparently you need to take a deep breath, count to ten, then take another deep breath and then edit your posts before you submit them.

    Needless to say I won't directly respond to that.

    And you did not argue that just a legal change will occur but that a legal change to your contract would occur and again, a legal contract means that certain things were agreed to and a change in contract means that what was agreed to between the parties has been altered. You now seem to be arguing that some change that does not effect terms of the contract at all is a change in contract. It's not. But regardless, I can concede that some kind of change will occur and it won't harm my overall argument at all. So just for the sake of argument, and apparently your blood pressure, I will concede that some kind of legal change will occur and that's all.

    But assuming that you were forwarding an argument that has relevance to the debate at hand, so what? How does this equate to a good reason to deny gays the same thing that straights receive?
    Last edited by mican333; July 14th, 2012 at 12:33 PM.

  4. #43
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That's a question, not an argument. But I assume your point is that only a small portion of the population will ever want to engage in a same-sex marriage. But correlating that to being the same number of people who care if same-sex marriage is legally recognized is a serious logical flaw. I'm straight but I have at least two gays in my immediate family as well as several gay friends. And even if I didn't know any gays I find anti-gay bigotry on par with racial bigotry and therefore would no more considered a known anti-gay candidate (like Rick Santorum) as I would a known racist candidate. And I seriously doubt I'm an anomaly amongst liberal-minded people.



    I'd say plenty. A mayor is facing a recall campaign after making anti-homosexual statements. If almost no one gave a rat's ass, this wouldn't be happening (and not so many years ago, it wouldn't be such a controversy).

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1593574.html



    And therefore may or may not grant them the same legal benefits and protections that other relationships receive so it is preventing them from attaining legal equality.



    Just because it does does not mean it should and to argue otherwise is to engage in the "is/ought fallacy". And the government does have the obligation to treat its citizens as equals under the law in respect to sexual orientation amongst other characteristics.

    To note, I am not seeking to engage in a debate over whether I am technically correct in my legal arguments, although I will if I have to, but just that it's not a given that the opposing views are correct. A person can reasonably believe that the government is obligated to afford gay marriage legal recognition.



    Wrong on both counts. First off, current polls show that more people support than oppose gay marriage (I will support that if asked to). And assuming one believes that everyone should receive legal equality and laws not recognizing gay marriage denies gays that legal equality, there is only one conclusion one can reach on whether the status quo should be maintained.



    Unless it is a constitutional issue and there's a strong case to be made that it is.

    The premise was that there are a lot of gays who'd vote Republican. So, I am specifically addressing his premise. I am countering that there simply aren't that many gays that'd effect any given election and no all gays vote based on the gay marriage issue. In 2010 about 1 in 3 gays were Republican
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44743.html

    So, again, I stand by my argument that the gay marriage issue isn't really that relevant or important. It doesn't crack the top list for most Americans. In fact, social issues really don't rate that high.
    http://www.christianpost.com/news/po...-voters-74313/
    In the list of top categories by importance, gay marriage was at the bottom. It trailed birth control, abortion, and gun control among many other things.

    I will concede that it appears, nationally, Americans are basically evenly split in supporting/opposing gay marriage. Of course, locally, this means very little. You have not shown that gay marriage tends to be highly important to any category of voter. You simply used the anecdotal evidence of yourself which really doesn't concur with the bigger picture indicated by polling data on the subject.

    I am not arguing in favor of nor against gay marriage in this thread. Whether you think it is a Federal Constitutional issue is still just a matter of opinion. My point is that there really isn't a reason for a national candidate to support it unless they truly do. Additionally, a local candidate is probably only helped politically in very specific places such as the examples I noted previously. Furthermore, I was noting that the stance on gay marriage isn't really a Republican v. Democrat issue which I supported in my previous post.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  5. #44
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,039
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    --10 deep breaths--

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And yet you did not respond to my last argument on the issue (post #34). Well, here it is again:
    Yes, because we have addressed this stuff already.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It is asking for shared access to a legal status that carries a particular perception
    Right, and we already agreed that the gov shouldn't engage in perception wars to tip cultural opinion one way or another.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Therefore the legal status is more desirable than an alternative name that does not carry that perception. And wanting something is a valid legal reason to be granted something.
    Which I have already countered in the past saying that it works both ways. I argued that the change is legally relevant and thus the change can be denied on the exact same bases IE (I don't want my contract to change, it doesn't matter how little you think it will effect me legally, my contract currently carries X meaning and I don't want it to change).

    I have offered my personal justification for this. *reminder* It was the one regarding religious objection.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It doesn't mean that what is desired must be granted but the denial of that thing must have a good reason behind it and the reasoning must be applied without prejudice based on sexual orientation.
    You will never accept my argument as "good" so I will aim for sufficient.
    It is a sufficient reason that 1) People object 2) The distinction is desired 3) Contract holders have a legal right to reject changes.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    In other words both gays and straights desire access to the term "marriage" because, in part, of the perception associated with it. The government is not really obliged to give anyone access to the term - as I believe you've argued and I never really objected to, the government perhaps should say "It's not a good idea for us to be in the marriage business, so we're not going to recognize marriage". But IF the government does agree to recognize marriages, then it morally has to accept all applicants based on the reason that those people want it with the only exception being those that it has a good reason to deny (such as children).
    Part of the perception that is associated with the term would be taken away, which is the distinction of marriage from all other relationships.

    1) It is a valid rejection by the state to deny people terms that they do not fulfill. As marriage refers to hero-relationship status, gay-relationships do not fulfill it.

    2) "I want" is not the only thing necessary to receive a legal term. Legal terms are not only given when one wants them, they are given when the terms are fulfilled. I gave the example of calling me a Dr, based on the fact that I "want it".


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It didn't legally effect the marriages that came before it.
    It legally connected them through association to interracial marriages.
    It is a two way street, you can't simply give the social aspects to one party without socially effecting the other party. Specifically through association, and as marriage is intended to differentiate between all other kinds of relationships it is a significant change that may be rejected if it is not wanted.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    And you did not argue that just a legal change will occur but that a legal change to your contract would occur and again, a legal contract means that certain things were agreed to and a change in contract means that what was agreed to between the parties has been altered.
    The legal contract was to distinguish one kind of relationship from all others, by editing who "all others" includes, is effective editing of the contract. As in my case where I signed it for the distinction and not the legal aspects that does effect me.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You now seem to be arguing that some change that does not effect terms of the contract at all is a change in contract. It's not.
    But it does, because it changes associations. You are simply ignoring the change because you don't feel it is "good reason".

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I can concede that some kind of change will occur and it won't harm my overall argument at all. So just for the sake of argument, and apparently your blood pressure, I will concede that some kind of legal change will occur and that's all.
    Right. right.
    So, if a change is occurring to my legal contract, I need to consent. If I do not it is sufficient reason to not change it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But assuming that you were forwarding an argument that has relevance to the debate at hand, so what? How does this equate to a good reason to deny gays the same thing that straights receive?
    1) Because your argument doesn't give them access to the same thing that straits have. Which is social. That change in name doesn't change society, and the gov shouldn't engage in that.
    2) It is immoral to change the terms and meanings in contracts without the consent of both parties. Just because someone wants to be included doesn't give them a moral right to edit other peoples contract. If the change is made legally, then all contracts will be read with that meaning and not the original intended meaning.

    Now, do you agree with the moral primes in #2, if so and having conceded that a change is occurring, then you must agree that there exists a good reason to not change the term.
    To serve man.

  6. #45
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Which I have already countered in the past saying that it works both ways. I argued that the change is legally relevant and thus the change can be denied on the exact same bases IE (I don't want my contract to change, it doesn't matter how little you think it will effect me legally, my contract currently carries X meaning and I don't want it to change).
    We are arguing morality and not legality. And "I don't want my contract to change" is not inherently a good and rational reason reason for the change might be positive or neutral and therefore you have no rational reason to object to it. You have to provide a good reason for not wanting your contract to change.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You will never accept my argument as "good" so I will aim for sufficient.
    It is a sufficient reason that 1) People object 2) The distinction is desired 3) Contract holders have a legal right to reject changes.
    I won't accept THAT argument as "good" because logically it does even attempt to make an argument for moral goodness.

    Two of them are based on the premise "whatever people want is good" which is a clear logical fallacy and the other talks about legal rights which is not a moral issue either.

    And I have not rejected a single argument of yours without explaining why I thought it was not good nor have you successfully rebutted any of my reasoning for the rejection (which doesn't mean you won't in future posts) so I will not accept the indication that I will, based on irrational prejudice, reject an argument that you present as "good" if it's not good. If you can't present a good argument - one that stands up to an agreed-upon premise of what "good" is and logically holds up, that is your fault, not mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    1) It is a valid rejection by the state to deny people terms that they do not fulfill. As marriage refers to hero-relationship status, gay-relationships do not fulfill it.
    Marriage does not innately refer to heteros. If that were true, then there would be no debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    2) "I want" is not the only thing necessary to receive a legal term. Legal terms are not only given when one wants them, they are given when the terms are fulfilled. I gave the example of calling me a Dr, based on the fact that I "want it".
    But the issue is what the criteria should be for legally fulfilling the term. So you need to provide a good and rational reason for setting the criteria at "opposite sex but not same-sex couples". It can't be "it's what it has been since now" since that is an appeal to tradition fallacy. It can't be "that's what it is now" for that is an "is/ought" fallacy. It can't be "that's what people want" for that is an "appeal to desire" fallacy. So what is that good and rational reason?


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It legally connected them through association to interracial marriages.
    It is a two way street, you can't simply give the social aspects to one party without socially effecting the other party. Specifically through association, and as marriage is intended to differentiate between all other kinds of relationships it is a significant change that may be rejected if it is not wanted.
    Not morally if you don't have a good reason.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The legal contract was to distinguish one kind of relationship from all others
    And it does. It distinguishes you and your wife from all other unions. If you mean that it was to distinguish opposite sex unions from same-sex unions, support or retract. Where in the contract does it say that?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Right. right.
    So, if a change is occurring to my legal contract, I need to consent. If I do not it is sufficient reason to not change it.
    Again, I don't agree with your legal reasoning (I don't think that is the kind of thing that was in your contract and therefore your consent is not required to make such an alteration) but since my argument is moral I have no problem conceding that point. Assuming you are correct, you have provided a sufficient legal reason to object to its alteration. But you have not provided a sufficient moral reason to not want such a change.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    1) Because your argument doesn't give them access to the same thing that straits have. Which is social. That change in name doesn't change society, and the gov shouldn't engage in that.
    It shouldn't do that as its goal but it shouldn't refrain from doing something because it will have a social effect. And besides, I'm talking about the people, not the government. GIVEN that denying gays the term "marriage" will deny them something that straights have, PEOPLE seeking to deny them that are violating my premise.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    2) It is immoral to change the terms and meanings in contracts without the consent of both parties.
    Terms, yes. But you have not supported that the terms will change (and that is where we get into the specific promises that each party made the other and whether they are being adhered to). But "meaning" is a different issue. If no one objects to the meaning being changed then it's not immoral to change it. And to rationally object to the meaning change you need a good and rational reason for objecting. Again, the "meaning" of marriage changed when we allowed interracial marriage (but the terms of the marriage contract did not) but since the only reason people could object were inherently racist reasons, no good argument for objection was to be found.

    I think what may help is if you introduce a moral premise. For example, I think the premise "If a person enters a contract that promises them something, it is immoral for that promise to be rescinded without the person's consent" would be the kind of premise you are forwarding and I would agree that that is a valid moral premise and therefore acceptable for this debate. But I argue that the premise is not being violated because you were never promised via the contract that the legal term marriage would never be altered and therefore you are being denied nothing that was promised you.

    So whether you want to make your argument based on that premise or another, why don't you forward a reasonable moral premise and then argue how that premise is being violated by the proposed change. If you can successfully do that, then you have forwarded a good reason.
    Last edited by mican333; July 15th, 2012 at 04:38 PM.

  7. #46
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,039
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But the issue is what the criteria should be for legally fulfilling the term. So you need to provide a good and rational reason for setting the criteria at "opposite sex but not same-sex couples". It can't be "it's what it has been since now" since that is an appeal to tradition fallacy. It can't be "that's what it is now" for that is an "is/ought" fallacy. It can't be "that's what people want" for that is an "appeal to desire" fallacy. So what is that good and rational reason?
    No, the burden is on you to provide a good reason to change it, not the other way around.
    You personally argued that appeal to desire was sufficient. Do you now retract that argument?


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Marriage does not innately refer to heteros. If that were true, then there would be no debate
    culturally it currently does. Hence the arguments that it should be changed.
    Hence all your arguments that they are being denied it's use. Because it isn't currently used that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And it does. It distinguishes you and your wife from all other unions. If you mean that it was to distinguish opposite sex unions from same-sex unions, support or retract. Where in the contract does it say that?
    That is what "marriage" means currently. This is not to say it should mean that, only that is what it currently conveys legally.

    Also I didn't say "unions" I said "relationships. You are changing my position to fit your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If no one objects to the meaning being changed then it's not immoral to change it. And to rationally object to the meaning change you need a good and rational reason for objecting.
    False, you don't need a "good" reason to not change a contract. All you need is lack of desire. You are then advocating that you can change meanings of words in contracts if you do not think the objection is based on a "good" reason. You are shifting the burden of proof in contract negotiations.

    That violates the premise I set forward.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I think what may help is if you introduce a moral premise.
    I did
    "It is immoral to change the terms and meanings in contracts without the consent of both parties"


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you can successfully do that, then you have forwarded a good reason.
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You have to provide a good reason for not wanting your contract to change.

    I have given good reason, you dismissed it by equivocating and shifting the meanings and intent, as well as a slew of other fallacious reasoning and argumentation.
    Lets review....

    Mind Trap Person reason to legally reject a change in contract.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mt POST 24
    Again when I married it was implicit that I was entering into a contract that was distinct from all others at the time. If a relationship is included that was not originally, that constitutes a change in the implied (at least) terms.
    Do you disagree that such terms were at least implied? I mean, "before God" and "holy matrimony" appear in some documents. The implication seems apparent IMO.
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN POST #26
    But your marriage is distinguishable from all others by the very fact that you and your wife are the only participants in it. Doesn't that distinguish it from all others?
    Quote Originally Posted by MT POST 27
    I gave you the distinction I was looking for. The religious conviction to not condone as morally acceptable a contract ,that seeks to encourage that immoral action, by entering into that same contract ourselves.
    Quote Originally Posted by MIcan post 28
    So you are seeking to deny gay couples the same social legitimacy that heterosexual unions receive via marriage. So you ARE for denying gays what straight receive. So you don't agree with my premise.



    Analysis.
    I give my reason

    Then in your response you equivocate the fact that my wife and I are distinct people with the intent of the contract to be an expression of the distinction we were making personally. You didn't argue that it wasn't a good reason, you changed to argue that we didn't need a contract in order to be personally distinct. This violates what you have said you are trying to do, and directly contradicts your claim that I haven't given a good reason, or haven't given a reason that you have not rebutted.

    I point that I signed up for a specific distinction that is going to be changed.
    Then you falsely accuse me of trying to deny gays couples social legitimacy. Which is a non-sequentular. (as I pointed out in my response not quoted here).


    All this, is what you have called on my part "not a good reason" and on your part "A good rebuttal".

    So no mican, I have provided a good reason that doesn't contradict your moral premise and you have not rebutted it. You twisted around for a bit with it, then moved on. Never acknowledging the faulty logic you use in objecting, moving the goal posts to get around the objection, offering red-herrings as counters and for some reason you absolutely insist on equivocating any distinction from anyone else, as the same kind of distinct that was agreed to originally. And you wonder why I'm frustrated by your debate on this?

    So, I'll ask
    1) How does my reason violate your moral premise?
    2) In what way does seeking a distinct name inherently deny someone else social standing?
    3) How is it that you consider compelling me to identify with another person as "moral"?

    and finally

    4) Who made you judge of what is a "good" reason?
    (To me this is just you holding the door so you can say "na-huh" under the dressings of judge and jury.)
    To serve man.

  8. #47
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    I'll give you an option and I'd like you to take one or the other but not both. I'm going to make a summation argument and you can either address it and ignore any points below that it covers (just use your own judgment on what is covered) or don't address my summation argument and just respond to all of the points below. Whichever you prefer is fine. I just don't want you to respond to it and everything else as that will just add redundancy. So to be clear, I will have no complaints if you ignore the summary argument but if you do, it might streamline things. And just reading will hopefully give you a better understanding of my argument if it's not totally clear so I think it's worth reading. So here it is:


    This is a morality debate and not a legal debate although legal issues are not entirely irrelevant for a legal decision can be immoral. But just because it is legally sound does not mean that it is or is not immoral. But to have a moral objection to a legal ruling, you have to have a moral reason. In other words you have to show that something that is inherently immoral or something damaging to people is happening. That is why I don't consider what I would term a legally irrelevant change is a good reason to oppose the change. If it doesn't hurt anyone, then there is no rational reason to oppose it.

    So you need to show actual damage, real or realistically potential, to make the case that the alteration is immoral, not just change by itself. As I said, I would accept that a promise made to you by the government should not be broken so even if the broken promise caused no real harm, it's wrong to break a promise without the consent of the other party so even that would fit the bill as being immoral.

    Your argument, as far as I can tell, is forwarding that there is a proposed legal change and that is innately bad but I don't accept that. If it doesn't harm you nor break a contractual promise made to you, then I don't see how it reasonably can be considered bad.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, the burden is on you to provide a good reason to change it, not the other way around.
    You personally argued that appeal to desire was sufficient. Do you now retract that argument?
    No. And the burden is not on me. You agreed with the premise (restated, remove race, etc since it's irrelevant):

    It is immoral to deny gays what straights receive without a good and rational reason.

    Clearly denying gays the legal term marriage is denying them what straights receive. Therefore to avoid being immoral, per my premise, those who seek to do so must have a good and rational reason so it's up to them to present one.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    culturally it currently does. Hence the arguments that it should be changed.
    LEGALLY it currently does. Culturally it's debatable, which is why the culture is debating a legal change. But regardless, marriage does not innately refer to straight unions, which was my point.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    False, you don't need a "good" reason to not change a contract. All you need is lack of desire. You are then advocating that you can change meanings of words in contracts if you do not think the objection is based on a "good" reason. You are shifting the burden of proof in contract negotiations.
    And you are apparently confused on what we are debating. We are engaging in a moral debate, not a legal debate. So the ONLY "good" reason to oppose a contract change and hold to the premise is to have a moral reason. If a legal alteration would harm you, then you would have a good moral reason to oppose the alteration (for it is immoral to alter someone's contract in a way that would harm them without their consent). So you HAVE TO show harm, real or potential, for this argument to stand up.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I did
    "It is immoral to change the terms and meanings in contracts without the consent of both parties"
    But you have not supported that the terms are being altered. And it occurs to me that I'm using "term" as the agreements of the contract, which may not be what you mean. So to be clear, I agree that changing the promises that the contractees make to each other would be immoral without the consent of both. But a legally irrelevant alteration to a contract does no harm and without fearing such harm, there is no rational reason to oppose the alteration. "I don't want that change just because" does not qualify as a good and rational reason to oppose a change.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I point that I signed up for a specific distinction that is going to be changed.
    Was that distinction promised to you? In other words, was it a term of your contract?


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Then in your response you equivocate the fact that my wife and I are distinct people with the intent of the contract to be an expression of the distinction we were making personally. You didn't argue that it wasn't a good reason, you changed to argue that we didn't need a contract in order to be personally distinct.
    No I didn't. I argued that the contract DID give you a distinction and would continue to do so. It gave you the distinction of being a marriage between MindTrap and Mrs. Mindtrap and since there are no other marriages made up of you two, the contract gave you the distinction that it promised you. And if the contract promised you that couples who were not, at that moment, eligible for marriage would never be given the legal name "marriage" then to grant it to others would be a violation of the terms of your contract. But such an exclusive usage of the name "marriage" is not in your contract so no violation of the terms will occur if gays are allowed legal marriage.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I point that I signed up for a specific distinction that is going to be changed.
    Again, show me where that distinction was promised you. If it's not a specific term of your contract, then you did not sign up for it specifically.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I gave you the distinction I was looking for. The religious conviction to not condone as morally acceptable a contract ,that seeks to encourage that immoral action, by entering into that same contract ourselves.
    But granting the gays the legal term "marriage" is not a government endorsement of the morality of their actions and therefore cannot, by extension, be seen as a moral endorsement by you.

    And that argument presents the notion that "marriage" is more than just a name - it's an endorsement of sorts. So your arguments are contradictory. So which is it? Is "marriage" just a name or is "marriage" some kind of endorsement? I expect you to choose one and drop the other completely.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You twisted around for a bit with it, then moved on. Never acknowledging the faulty logic you use in objecting, moving the goal posts to get around the objection, offering red-herrings as counters and for some reason you absolutely insist on equivocating any distinction from anyone else, as the same kind of distinct that was agreed to originally. And you wonder why I'm frustrated by your debate on this?
    I promise you that if I "twisted" or "dodged" or whatever, it is because I was not completely clear on your argument which very well could be your fault as well as mine, since perhaps you did not state your position clearly enough for me to understand it. And that's alright. Neither of us are perfect so miscommunication will happen. But if you are going to accuse me of intentionally making bad arguments or twisting your arguments or dodging or whatever, we can end this debate right now! If you want to bitch at me, do it via PM. But I will not put up with having my honor questioned on a thread. That is non-negotiable.

    And besides that, I will not debate the debate. If you feel a point is not adequately addressed by me, then just re-present it as opposed trying to get me to go back and figure out what went wrong or how it's supposedly my fault that there was a misunderstanding. So drop the griping and just explain what specifically you think I've not adequately addressed. Even if you think it's a bit of a waste of time to re-state a point you feel you already made, it's even a bigger waste of time trying to get me to understand what the confusion is about before you have me address that point.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    2) In what way does seeking a distinct name inherently deny someone else social standing?
    It's not a just a name. It's a legal term that carries innate social standing and denying others that legal term denies them the social standing associated with it.

    Technically, I don't even have to make an exception for denying gays a name but if it's ONLY a name, nothing more, then what the heck. I'll make an exception to my own premise just to keep the debate going. But if to deny gays a "name" means denying them something else as well, then you are no longer just denying them a name.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    3) How is it that you consider compelling me to identify with another person as "moral"?
    What do you mean by "compelling...to identity with"? To me, that sounds like you are being forced to personally identify with gay couples. You don't have to do that if you don't want to. The legal status does not force any personal acceptance of others on your part.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    4) Who made you judge of what is a "good" reason?
    (To me this is just you holding the door so you can say "na-huh" under the dressings of judge and jury.)
    Riiiggghhht. Like I never rejected one of you arguments by pointing out the logical fallacy it is forwarding. I pointed out that at least some of your arguments aren't good because they are based on the "appeal to desire" fallacy. If you don't agree that the "appeal to desire" fallacy is a real fallacy, then by all means object to Judge Mican's ruling.
    Last edited by mican333; July 16th, 2012 at 12:56 PM.

  9. #48
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,039
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    First, I have been unnecessarily testy and aggressive and for that I apologize.

    Part of my frustration is the misunderstanding of my position, and some general communication breakdowns.
    You are right that I have a part in that, so I will summarize my position and objections and address a few points on the way, while not quoting excessively... or trying not too.

    --Mican Primes--

    Your premise has evolved through this thread, and I no longer agree with it in it's current form. I think that it is seriously flawed (reason to come).
    First the premise was "It is immoral to deny gays something which everyone else gets without a good rational reason". (not quoting but that) I agreed with that. I maintained(even though it took a while to articulate) that it didn't apply to marriage, because not everyone gets it.

    Now we are at "It is immoral to deny gays what straights receive without a good and rational reason."
    I disagree with this, or maintain there are blanket rational reasons which are good enough to justify marriage.

    I have brought this up in the thread already, but we already have many distinctions like Marriage, and the reasons are no different.
    For example the term "Strait". Should we include "Gays" in the term strait? Why not, if not for making a distinction. The same applies to marriage.
    Thus We may deny gays the term "marriage" based on making a distinction exactly like "gay/strait" "boy/girl" etc.


    --Legal issues--
    The legal issue is tied in because I have argued that it is the above distinction for which it was formed and purposed.
    You have challenged me to quote the line in my contract which enumerates this. I feel this is simply denying the obvious.
    If marriage were not purposed to draw a distinction in the kind of relationship I was in from all others, I would have never "married" in the legal sense and rather stuck with the purely and clearly religious use of the word. The objection that my marriage is still distinct even with a change to the legal term "marriage" simply ignores the fact that a legal marriage isn't necessary for that kind of distinction. It is inherent to being in any relationship that I and my partner are in. It should be very clear that it is not that kind of distinction that was being made.


    --Moral argument--
    The moral argument presented is flawed from it's primes and how it applies. Marriage as a distinction term is not immoral, nor does it violate any variation of the premise so far.

    On my side, I have argued that it is immoral to change the terms and meanings of and in a contract without consent.
    to this we end up with the legal debate, which is easily confused, but is clearly related. If you agree with this moral premise, then you are forced to argue that no change is occurring.
    change/no change. Clearly a change is occurring, because a change is being pursued. This is a source of frustration with your position, because you are arguing for the change, then denying that it is a change. I think what you are really arguing is that the change is not significant to me and I shouldn't object. I find this to be an out right ignoring of the reason it is significant to me. Now, my reason for objection is above, so the change is significant, and I have a valid reason to not want it. As I don't want it, it is immoral to force the change on me. That it would be better for you is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If a legal alteration would harm you, then you would have a good moral reason to oppose the alteration (for it is immoral to alter someone's contract in a way that would harm them without their consent). So you HAVE TO show harm, real or potential, for this argument to stand up.
    I disagree with your stated premise. It doesn't matter if the change causes harm or not, it is immoral to make changes to a contract that are not consented too. Because a contract it is by definition an agreement, not simply to duties, but also to wording and meanings.
    What you are allowing for is the unilateral editing of a contract. .. I do not agree.

    --Burden of Harm--
    There is no burden of "harm", there is a burden of "does it violate my rights". As long as a change in contract violates my rights as a party engaged in that contract, it is wrong to change the contract. In this case we are talking about consent.
    Thus we move from the legal argument to the moral argument, where you demand that I must have a morally sufficient reason, otherwise my valid and legal exercise of my rights are "Immoral". For that we go back to the distinction argument once again. Seeking distinction from others is a morally valid justification for not wanting a change in contract.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Was that distinction promised to you? In other words, was it a term of your contract?
    It is inherent to the nature of the contract.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But granting the gays the legal term "marriage" is not a government endorsement of the morality of their actions and therefore cannot, by extension, be seen as a moral endorsement by you.
    I disagree. If your kids see you smoking while you tell them "don't smoke", your words commonly will ring hollow. Same thing applies here. It is hypocritical to denounce something you are engaged in.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And that argument presents the notion that "marriage" is more than just a name - it's an endorsement of sorts. So your arguments are contradictory. So which is it? Is "marriage" just a name or is "marriage" some kind of endorsement? I expect you to choose one and drop the other completely.
    No, I said that me engaging in the same kind of contract that legitimizes lifestyles I believe to be immoral, is me lending legitimacy to that lifestyle. Or as I said "condone as morally acceptable a contract that seeks to legitimize immoral behavior".

    To go further, this is specifically part of the motivation to seek distinction from all other "relationships".

    The two positions, when properly understood, are not contradictory.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It's not a just a name. It's a legal term that carries innate social standing and denying others that legal term denies them the social standing associated with it.
    I understand "social standings" to be separate from the "legal standings". We both agree that gays should be given or have ability to obtain equal "legal standing". But social standing is a bit harder to pin down. I take social standings to mean "social opinion".
    However, that social standing (whatever it's condition) was earned by the participants. For example marriage is commonly mocked because of it's participants.

    It is wrong to try and assume that which you didn't earn for yourself. This is a sort of deception. By seeking to destroy the distinction and assume the identity of another group.

    Question.
    Is it wrong to steal another's identity Or to blur the lines of identity so that one will be mistaken for the other for personal gain?
    .. I think so, and that is exactly what you are arguing for when you argue for "social standing".
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    What do you mean by "compelling...to identity with"? To me, that sounds like you are being forced to personally identify with gay couples. You don't have to do that if you don't want to. The legal status does not force any personal acceptance of others on your part.
    What I mean is a reference to your appeal to "social standing". See above for that. By blurring the lines you are forcing me to be personally identified by destroying the distinction between us. That is what it means to not be distinguished from another.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you don't agree that the "appeal to desire" fallacy is a real fallacy, then by all means object to Judge Mican's ruling.
    Honorable Judge Mican, in line with this objection from you, do you or do you not withdraw/concede your appeal to desire? Do I need to quote it to you where you said "desire is sufficient reason for gays to demand ..."

    Regarding my own argument. I have tried to put my objection together in a more understandable form. If you feel I have committed an "appeal to desire" fallacy, please point it out exactly where it occurs.
    To serve man.

  10. #49
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your premise has evolved through this thread, and I no longer agree with it in it's current form. I think that it is seriously flawed (reason to come).
    First the premise was "It is immoral to deny gays something which everyone else gets without a good rational reason". (not quoting but that) I agreed with that. I maintained(even though it took a while to articulate) that it didn't apply to marriage, because not everyone gets it.

    Now we are at "It is immoral to deny gays what straights receive without a good and rational reason."
    I disagree with this, or maintain there are blanket rational reasons which are good enough to justify marriage.
    First off, that is just a subset of the original premise. If you agree with the original premise you have no choice but agree with the sub-premise for it logically follows and I only forwarded it as an alternative because it's less words. And if you want to stick with the original premise, we can do that. And my premise is not a justification for marriage. It only points out that those who oppose it are acting immorally (without a good reason for their actions, that is).

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have brought this up in the thread already, but we already have many distinctions like Marriage, and the reasons are no different.
    For example the term "Strait". Should we include "Gays" in the term strait? Why not, if not for making a distinction. The same applies to marriage.
    Thus We may deny gays the term "marriage" based on making a distinction exactly like "gay/strait" "boy/girl" etc.
    But doing so without a good reason violates my premise. It seems that perhaps I have not made myself clear on this.

    Given that denying gays the legal term marriage denies them something that all others receive based on sexual orientation it violates my premise. So to justify doing that you need a good moral reason. "Because I can" will not suffice. "Because it is legally allowable" will not suffice. You need to provide a reason why we SHOULD do that.

    And generally all moral reasoning has an accepted moral premise behind them and despite how you seem to think I'm debating, I will not turn down any moral premise that one can expect a significant majority to accept.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If marriage were not purposed to draw a distinction in the kind of relationship I was in from all others, I would have never "married" in the legal sense and rather stuck with the purely and clearly religious use of the word. The objection that my marriage is still distinct even with a change to the legal term "marriage" simply ignores the fact that a legal marriage isn't necessary for that kind of distinction. It is inherent to being in any relationship that I and my partner are in. It should be very clear that it is not that kind of distinction that was being made.
    I agree that that particular distinction would no longer be made. But to object to the change in distinction, one needs a good moral argument to not violate my premise. I mean I absolutely do not care if that distinction is removed (and arguably the same goes for half of the US population) so it's clear that one is not obligated to morally object to it. So since it's not inherently wrong for that distinction to be removed and refusing to remove it denies gays what straights receive, one needs to provide a good moral argument for not removing it to not violate my premise.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Marriage as a distinction term is not immoral, nor does it violate any variation of the premise so far.
    I agree.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Clearly a change is occurring, because a change is being pursued. This is a source of frustration with your position, because you are arguing for the change, then denying that it is a change. I think what you are really arguing is that the change is not significant to me and I shouldn't object. I find this to be an out right ignoring of the reason it is significant to me. Now, my reason for objection is above, so the change is significant, and I have a valid reason to not want it. As I don't want it, it is immoral to force the change on me. That it would be better for you is irrelevant.
    You are generally correct. The only flaw is that you are not giving a good argument for the change being bad. "I don't want it" is an "appeal to desire". And your above argument is just more of the same. You said you object to the removal of a distinction but without saying why your objection is just "Because I don't like it". Obviously your marriage retains quite a bit of distinction and the one that is being removed is, as I've argued, legally irrelevant as in it will not legally effect your marriage at all (as far as any legal proceeding concerning your marriage go). So without a good moral reason to object to the removal of that particular distinction, you have yet to provide a good moral reason to oppose gay marriage.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I disagree with your stated premise. It doesn't matter if the change causes harm or not, it is immoral to make changes to a contract that are not consented too. Because a contract it is by definition an agreement, not simply to duties, but also to wording and meanings.
    The words and meanings are only relevant to the contract to the extent that they effect the enforcement of the contract. And I really see no reason to not change my position on this - it just seems like common sense to me. So unless you can provide a solid legal argument for a different conclusion we will have to agree to disagree on this.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    --Burden of Harm--
    There is no burden of "harm", there is a burden of "does it violate my rights". As long as a change in contract violates my rights as a party engaged in that contract, it is wrong to change the contract.
    Well, I completely concede that having your legal rights violated would be harm and therefore a good reason to oppose something. But I mean a real legal right (think constitutional right), not something one can idly claim they have a "right" to (like a smoker having the "right" to smoke wherever he likes).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    In this case we are talking about consent.
    Thus we move from the legal argument to the moral argument, where you demand that I must have a morally sufficient reason, otherwise my valid and legal exercise of my rights are "Immoral". For that we go back to the distinction argument once again. Seeking distinction from others is a morally valid justification for not wanting a change in contract.
    No it's not. Since distinction is not inherently morally good or bad, a good moral reason must be presented to oppose a distinction before opposing it becomes morally good.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I disagree. If your kids see you smoking while you tell them "don't smoke", your words commonly will ring hollow. Same thing applies here. It is hypocritical to denounce something you are engaged in.
    Bad analogy. The government is not "smoking". But regardless, you are still skirting the issue that you need to provide a good moral reason to oppose gay marriage. If the government endorses what it recognizes, then it is currently endorsing straight marriage and if one is to say that that's alright but it's wrong for them to endorse gay marriage, they need a good reason for that position. And if one is arguing that the government should not be endorsing marriage at all, then the only option is to end government recognized marriage for all (which would adhere to my premise).

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, I said that me engaging in the same kind of contract that legitimizes lifestyles I believe to be immoral, is me lending legitimacy to that lifestyle. Or as I said "condone as morally acceptable a contract that seeks to legitimize immoral behavior".
    But the contract does not seek to legitimize their behavior. It might be a side-effect of the contract but it's certainly not the purpose of the contract. And "I think it's immoral" is just another variation of "I don't like it" and therefore just another appeal to desire.

    If you are going to argue that it's immoral, I think you need to start with a moral premise that most would agree with and base your argument on that. As I understand what you mean by "meanings and terms" it is forwarding a non-harmful non-legal-effect change that is not reasonable to consider harmful.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I understand "social standings" to be separate from the "legal standings". We both agree that gays should be given or have ability to obtain equal "legal standing". But social standing is a bit harder to pin down. I take social standings to mean "social opinion".
    However, that social standing (whatever it's condition) was earned by the participants. For example marriage is commonly mocked because of it's participants.

    It is wrong to try and assume that which you didn't earn for yourself. This is a sort of deception. By seeking to destroy the distinction and assume the identity of another group.
    I disagree with the terminology that straights "earned" marriage. "Earning" implies doing something that deserves a consideration - like working to earn money. Being straight is not an action that deserves consideration. So straights do not morally deserve marriage anymore than gays do since they did nothing more to earn it than gays have done. And the identity is not being assumed - it is being shared. And without a good reason to not share, morally one should share.

    And while I won't go there since I think it would be a purely subjective argument (as well as one I don't really agree with), one could make the argument that straights do NOT deserve the term marriage due to the "awful mess" they made of marriage with the divorce rate and such.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What I mean is a reference to your appeal to "social standing". See above for that. By blurring the lines you are forcing me to be personally identified by destroying the distinction between us.
    No. You are as free as always to personally make the distinction. There is nothing stopping you from referring to legal same-sex unions as "gay marriage" and never just "marriage" until the day you die.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Honorable Judge Mican, in line with this objection from you, do you or do you not withdraw/concede your appeal to desire? Do I need to quote it to you where you said "desire is sufficient reason for gays to demand ..."
    I believe that I was forwarding that as a legal argument, not a moral one. Desire is a valid LEGAL reason to demand something. But if it will clear things up, I concede that gays wanting the term marriage is not a valid moral reason to grant them that. The valid moral reason is an "appeal to equality".
    Last edited by mican333; July 17th, 2012 at 09:38 AM.

  11. #50
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,039
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    First off, that is just a subset of the original premise. If you agree with the original premise you have no choice but agree with the sub-premise for it logically follows and I only forwarded it as an alternative because it's less words. And if you want to stick with the original premise, we can do that. And my premise is not a justification for marriage. It only points out that those who oppose it are acting immorally (without a good reason for their actions, that is).
    It doesn't follow from the first version.
    If "everyone" is given something, then a good reason is needed in order to not be special pleading to omit one group.

    However, that doesn't apply if there are many groups excluded based on all kinds of criteria. Sexual orientation is not an invalid criteria to exclude someone from a term. Evidenced by the terms boy/girl .. gay/strait etc

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Given that denying gays the legal term marriage denies them something that all others receive based on sexual orientation it violates my premise.
    I have addressed this already and you are simply repeating the claim.

    The fact is not "everyone" receives "marriage".

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So to justify doing that you need a good moral reason. "Because I can" will not suffice. "Because it is legally allowable" will not suffice. You need to provide a reason why we SHOULD do that.

    And generally all moral reasoning has an accepted moral premise behind them and despite how you seem to think I'm debating, I will not turn down any moral premise that one can expect a significant majority to accept.
    As a result of the above objection, your position is invalid and doesn't follow logically from the premises as one stated primes is false. (see above).

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The words and meanings are only relevant to the contract to the extent that they effect the enforcement of the contract. And I really see no reason to not change my position on this - it just seems like common sense to me. So unless you can provide a solid legal argument for a different conclusion we will have to agree to disagree on this.
    They are only relevant to you, but they can be relevant to others. As long as they can, it is a valid objection.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Well, I completely concede that having your legal rights violated would be harm and therefore a good reason to oppose something. But I mean a real legal right (think constitutional right), not something one can idly claim they have a "right" to (like a smoker having the "right" to smoke wherever he likes).
    O.k. then we should both be on the same page as for my legal objection to changing a contract without consent. All that is left is to argue the moral reason for not consenting.

    At this point there is a conflict. If it is immoral to change a contract without consent, but the reason for objection is an immoral one(for sake of argument). Then is it the case that we should change the contract against their will?


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No it's not. Since distinction is not inherently morally good or bad, a good moral reason must be presented to oppose a distinction before opposing it becomes morally good.
    Here is where you go astray. If your argument is said to be a moral one, then opposition must be shown to be IMMORAL. Not morally neutral. You here admit that it is a morally neutral position to have a distinction. Thus what exists is not immoral, and thus denying a change is not immoral as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Bad analogy. The government is not "smoking". But regardless, you are still skirting the issue that you need to provide a good moral reason to oppose gay marriage
    I have given a good moral reason to oppose gay marriage.
    1) It is not wrong to oppose gay marriage per our above agreement that distinction is morally neutral.
    2) Personal moral objections.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Bad analogy. The government is not "smoking". But regardless, you are still skirting the issue that you need to provide a good moral reason to oppose gay marriage
    no, you are not understanding the analogy properly. It wasn't about the gov, it was about me. Try again to understand what I am saying. We were not discussing my relationship with the gov in that exchange, and you have inserted it as a bases for objection. If you have trouble, ask me a question regarding what I mean, but you should be able to get it if you read it again.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    But the contract does not seek to legitimize their behavior.
    Mican, you have been arguing for this as "social standing" for the entire thread. How is it that when I point it out and see it for what it is, you object? Are you seeking social standing or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It might be a side-effect of the contract but it's certainly not the purpose of the contract.
    I disagree, it is part of the "distinction" being made.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And "I think it's immoral" is just another variation of "I don't like it" and therefore just another appeal to desire.
    Then I reject your moral premise on those exact grounds and your case falls apart.
    You are special pleading here.

    Further, and most troubling, is that your insist that a "good reason" is one that you will agree with. Here I was offering a "good reason" for me to object.

    Is it or isn't it a "good reason" for me to object to that which I find immoral?
    If not, then you do not have a "good reason" to object to my objection based on any of your own moral premises.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you are going to argue that it's immoral, I think you need to start with a moral premise that most would agree with and base your argument on that. As I understand what you mean by "meanings and terms" it is forwarding a non-harmful non-legal-effect change that is not reasonable to consider harmful.
    That is because your idea of "reasonable" is not reasonable at all.
    You reject opinions you dont' agree with and label the "unreasonable" based on nothing more than the fact you disagree.
    I offered the reason to object, and you are doing nothing more than ignoring it completely. Example being a personal moral objection. You put yourself as absolute judge of what is moral, as though I must have your approval in order for it to be "justified". By doing this you are shifting the burden of proof away from yourself.

    Maybe I wasn't clear. I do not accept your moral premise. I do not accept that given your moral premise my position violates it. Please spend some time addressing that point of disagreement instead of simply assuming it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    disagree with the terminology that straights "earned" marriage.
    Good for you, because I didn't say anything of the sort.

    Mican, you need to read what I wrote and stop changing the concepts I'm talking about to fit your argument. I didn't say "marriage" I said "social standing". Because you were arguing for social standings.
    I believe you when you say you are debating honestly here, and that this is partly due to my failing to communicate.
    .... help my unbelief.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No. You are as free as always to personally make the distinction. There is nothing stopping you from referring to legal same-sex unions as "gay marriage" and never just "marriage" until the day you die.
    That isn't what I said mican.
    I said it forces me to be identified with them. As in I will be personally grouped in with them when I'm seeking distinction from them. Not that I would some how be forced to personally accept them. .. Though I would argue that I am in a legal sense, but I'm not talking about that here.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    I believe that I was forwarding that as a legal argument, not a moral one. Desire is a valid LEGAL reason to demand something. But if it will clear things up, I concede that gays wanting the term marriage is not a valid moral reason to grant them that. The valid moral reason is an "appeal to equality".
    That does clear it up a bit.



    @ Mican
    In your response you have misunderstood/misrepresented my position at least 2-3 times on important points. I ask that you please re-read my post and try to address those points again in accordance with what I was saying. If there is some confusion as to what I mean, or if I was not clear enough please point to the trouble area and I'll try to clarify.
    To serve man.

  12. #51
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    I'm going to make a synthesis arguments for a few points instead of addressing them point-by-point.

    Again, my premise is "Seeking to deny someone something that everyone else gets based on sexual orientation without a good reason is immoral". Now THAT is my original premise with the irrelevancies (like "race") removed.

    I agree that distinctions, in and of themselves, are not immoral. BUT seeking to create a legal distinction that denies someone something that everyone else gets based on sexual orientation without a good reason is immoral. So it is not at all accurate to take my statement that distinctions are morally neutral to mean that using a distinction to deny gays something that straights receive is morally neutral. An analogy would be saying that hammers are morally neutral but hitting someone on the head with one is not (again, unless you have a good reason to).

    You claim that apparently I am rejecting what is a "good" reason based on purely subjective criteria is completely unsupported. As I said, I will accept any moral premise that one would expect a significant majority (around 90% or higher) as well as any moral premise that I do personally agree with. So any reasonable moral premise forwarded will be accepted. Your complaints that I am unfairly rejecting "good" morals on personal whims are completely unfounded. As far as I can tell I have never rejected a moral position without a solid reason. So I will not accept the excuse that you are not forwarding a good moral because you think I would capriciously not accept it.

    Just saying that you have a moral objection clearly does not qualify as support that you have a good reason. Perhaps you have a bad reason. We can't determine that if you don't forward the moral premise behind your objection and until you do so you cannot support the claim (assuming you are even making it) that you have a good moral reason to oppose.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It doesn't follow from the first version.
    If "everyone" is given something, then a good reason is needed in order to not be special pleading to omit one group.

    However, that doesn't apply if there are many groups excluded based on all kinds of criteria. Sexual orientation is not an invalid criteria to exclude someone from a term. Evidenced by the terms boy/girl .. gay/strait etc
    If the term is nothing other than a descriptor and one that no one cares to challenge (like calling a boy a "boy) you are correct. But clearly a legal term is much, much more than just a descriptor that no one cares to challenge. So it DOES apply to denying gays the legal term "marriage".


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have addressed this already and you are simply repeating the claim.

    The fact is not "everyone" receives "marriage".
    I said "BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION". The only group who is denied marriage based on sexual orientation are gays.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    O.k. then we should both be on the same page as for my legal objection to changing a contract without consent. All that is left is to argue the moral reason for not consenting.

    At this point there is a conflict. If it is immoral to change a contract without consent, but the reason for objection is an immoral one(for sake of argument). Then is it the case that we should change the contract against their will?
    If we have a moral reason to do and do not have a greater moral reason not to do so, then yes.

    As an example, going by your definition of "changing the contract" we "changed the contract" when we legalized interracial marriage. I doubt you'd argue that there wasn't a good moral reason to do it and if there was a good moral reason to not do it, I'm not aware of it (just like I'm not aware of a good moral reason to not "change the contract" in the case of same-sex marriage). So in that case, we SHOULD legalize interracial marriage.

    As I said, I think you need to introduce the moral premise that is behind your reasoning. I don't agree that changing the contract is immoral in and of itself, especially with the incredibly loose terminology of "changing the contract" you are using here. So what is the moral premise that makes THIS alteration immoral?



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Mican, you have been arguing for this as "social standing" for the entire thread. How is it that when I point it out and see it for what it is, you object? Are you seeking social standing or not?
    No, I am not. I am seeking to have the laws to grant gays the same things that it grants straights. The government is not obligated to recognize gay marriages and inadvertently give their unions increased social standing since it is not obligated to recognize ANY marriage. But if it chooses to recognize marriages, then it cannot do so for the straight ones and not the gay ones for that is inadvertently giving one group something that it denies the other, thus violation my premise.

    Again, "social standing" by itself is irrelevant. It's just an example of what legal marriage gives. If Denny's gave legally married couples a free meal on their anniversary, that would be as relevant an example as social standing for my argument (The government does not give them the free meal but inadvertently allows them to receive it). It's just SOMETHING that legally married people get that others do not.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    no, you are not understanding the analogy properly. It wasn't about the gov, it was about me. Try again to understand what I am saying. We were not discussing my relationship with the gov in that exchange, and you have inserted it as a bases for objection. If you have trouble, ask me a question regarding what I mean, but you should be able to get it if you read it again.
    I don't think I'm having trouble. I think you aren't understanding the issue properly. We ARE debating whether the GOVERNMENT should grant gays the legal definition of marriage, not whether YOU should individually choose to recognize a gay marriage as "marriage". Are you or are you not forwarding the position that the GOVERNMENT should not call gay unions "marriage" and instead call them something else, like "civil union"? That really is the ONLY topic of debate here. If you don't understand that, then you are the one who is unclear on what is being debated.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Maybe I wasn't clear. I do not accept your moral premise. I do not accept that given your moral premise my position violates it. Please spend some time addressing that point of disagreement instead of simply assuming it.
    So you think it's alright to deny gays what straights receive for no good reason? If so, then you do disagree with my premise and we will have to agree to disagree and have nothing further to debate.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Mican, you need to read what I wrote and stop changing the concepts I'm talking about to fit your argument. I didn't say "marriage" I said "social standing". Because you were arguing for social standings.
    I think you should entertain the notion that miscommunication is just as likely to be your fault as mine and stop blaming me. Seriously, I am the one who forwarded "social standing" into the debate and if you think you can divorce it from marriage and still relevantly address my argument, you do not understand why I brought it up. And I'm willing to entertain the notion that perhaps I didn't explain my position well enough (but hopefully I have by now) so I see no point in playing the blame game.

    As I already said if you want to gripe at me, send me a PM. But don't do it on the thread.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I said it forces me to be identified with them. As in I will be personally grouped in with them when I'm seeking distinction from them.
    Okay. But I don't see how you have a good moral case to insist that gays be denied marriage to prevent those things from happening. I understand you don't want them to but "I don't want it to happen" is an appeal to desire.

    What is the commonly-accepted moral premise for this being wrong? And no appeals to desire, please.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    In your response you have misunderstood/misrepresented my position at least 2-3 times on important points. I ask that you please re-read my post and try to address those points again in accordance with what I was saying.
    Here is what I would recommend. If there are specific points that you feel have not been addressed, make a separate argument away from all of the point-by-points.

    And you should keep in mind that you are responding to my arguments some of the time and I was the one who introduced the social standing argument so if there is a misunderstanding concerning that argument's point, it was your misunderstanding, not mine. I am not unclear on what I meant when I forwarded that argument.
    Last edited by mican333; July 19th, 2012 at 04:09 PM.

  13. #52
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,039
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If the term is nothing other than a descriptor and one that no one cares to challenge (like calling a boy a "boy) you are correct. But clearly a legal term is much, much more than just a descriptor that no one cares to challenge. So it DOES apply to denying gays the legal term "marriage".
    This is special pleading.
    You are dismissing a valid similarity on the basis of people caring to challenge it. In other words, the "desire fallacy".
    Your counter is thus invalid on two counts.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I said "BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION". The only group who is denied marriage based on sexual orientation are gays.
    False, bestiality is denied the term of marriage. Based on sexuality and species. (for even if animals were given legal status they would be denied marriage).

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If we have a moral reason to do and do not have a greater moral reason not to do so, then yes.
    Well, you have not established a greater moral reason, only at best a moral reason. I'm not even sure you have acknowledged that I have offered a moral reason (per below).


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    As I said, I think you need to introduce the moral premise that is behind your reasoning. I don't agree that changing the contract is immoral in and of itself, especially with the incredibly loose terminology of "changing the contract" you are using here. So what is the moral premise that makes THIS alteration immoral?
    Well this is a "for sake of argument" section.
    If it is changing the contract, and you are doing it against their will. I think that is immoral.
    You can agree, or disagree with that moral premise. Then we can continue.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No, I am not. I am seeking to have the laws to grant gays the same things that it grants straights. The government is not obligated to recognize gay marriages and inadvertently give their unions increased social standing since it is not obligated to recognize ANY marriage. But if it chooses to recognize marriages, then it cannot do so for the straight ones and not the gay ones for that is inadvertently giving one group something that it denies the other, thus violation my premise.
    The state can not deny something it has no say over. If it is irrelevant, then you can't use it to say that the state is denying gays social standing. Your conclusion doesn't follow. You are here saying the state is denying something that in reality the people are denying. Now moral or not for people to deny it to one group over another, it is irrelevant if you are going to argue for a legal change.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Again, "social standing" by itself is irrelevant. It's just an example of what legal marriage gives. If Denny's gave legally married couples a free meal on their anniversary, that would be as relevant an example as social standing for my argument (The government does not give them the free meal but inadvertently allows them to receive it). It's just SOMETHING that legally married people get that others do not.
    So what, it is not immoral for Denny's to give married couples free meals, or 2 year olds free meals on Monday night.
    By changing the term you would destroy a distinction that people (like Denny's) want to make, and are free to do so without violating any moral law.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I don't think I'm having trouble. I think you aren't understanding the issue properly. We ARE debating whether the GOVERNMENT should grant gays the legal definition of marriage, not whether YOU should individually choose to recognize a gay marriage as "marriage". Are you or are you not forwarding the position that the GOVERNMENT should not call gay unions "marriage" and instead call them something else, like "civil union"? That really is the ONLY topic of debate here. If you don't understand that, then you are the one who is unclear on what is being debated.
    Yes, I understand that perfectly. But my response was in regards to my justification ,that you demanded I offer, for me rejecting a change to my contract. I argued that changing the contract would create an association I am morally opposed too and that engaging in it would constitute hypocrisy on my part. I supported that by giving the smoking analogy, and you applied it to the gov, instead of to the point I was supporting. Which was the reasoning for my moral objection to a change in my contract. Avoiding hypocrisy is a moral justification, and you have repeated that I need to offer a moral objection or premise to justify my objection.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So you think it's alright to deny gays what straights receive for no good reason?
    I think that it is alright to deny gays for a reason you refuse to acknowledge as "good". Which is for the sole purpose of distinction.
    I have offered several other examples of this exact thing occurring (distinction based on sex) which you have been unable to show as equally immoral and in fact you have fallaciously written off through your special pleading argument, and argument from desire.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If so, then you do disagree with my premise and we will have to agree to disagree and have nothing further to debate.
    If you insist that the moral premise applies where I don't believe it does, then Yes.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Okay. But I don't see how you have a good moral case to insist that gays be denied marriage to prevent those things from happening. I understand you don't want them to but "I don't want it to happen" is an appeal to desire.

    What is the commonly-accepted moral premise for this being wrong? And no appeals to desire, please.
    First see bottom for the lengthening list of arguments I have offered.

    Second, here is this one laid out more clearly (I hope).
    Moral premises
    1) That your rights end where mine begin. 2) It is wrong to violate peoples rights unless they have violated the rights of another (or shown that such a thing is immanent).

    What I have forwarded in this line of argument is that there is a conflicting moral value, and you must support why your moral premise is superior and the other needs to be suspended.

    So it would go like this.
    Conflicting Moral principle argument

    1) There exists a legal contract that was entered into in good faith with certain expectations (the expectation of distinction) as the reason for entering into the contract.
    2) Changing the legal meanings of words in the contract would be against the will of some contract holders, and all contracts would be read under the new meaning.
    3)An unwanted changing of the meaning of words in a contract is a valid legal reason to reject the change.
    4) It is immoral to change meanings of words in contracts without the consent of both sides.
    5) From #3 and #4 -- it is immoral to change the meanings of words in their contract.
    6) Even if the reasoning for willfully entering into the contract were immoral it does not give the right to another to change the contract without consent.
    7) Changing the contract without the consent of parties in it is being sought.
    8) It is immoral to seek the proposed legal change.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    Here is what I would recommend. If there are specific points that you feel have not been addressed, make a separate argument away from all of the point-by-points.
    Above is one of what I feel are 3 related arguments.

    Personal Moral objection argument

    1) One should not equate them-self with sinful behavior, or with what one feels is sinful behavior
    2) I see Homosexuality, among many other relationships, as sinful.
    3) Thus I should not want to be equated or associated with those sinful behaviors.
    4) Thus I should distinguish myself from them.
    5) This constitutes a valid moral reason for me to reject the legal change to my contract.
    6) It is good for me to reject that which I find immoral.
    7) I find it immoral.
    8) This is a "good" moral argument against change in marriage.

    Argument for earned social standing
    1) Certain groups are distinct from others (in that they are identified)
    2) Any social standing that group has is based on it's actions as a group, and is thus "earned" by the group.
    3) Changing the definition of the group so as to include other groups that were not originally identified, facilitate mistaken identity.
    3) It is wrong to seek a change in the identification of the group so as to be included for the soul purpose of being mistaken for one who has earned the social standings.
    4) Changing the meaning of the word "marriage" to include other groups in order to confer the social standing that those groups earned, is seeking to be mistaken for the previous identified group.
    5) It is immoral to seek to mislead others so as to benefit from the earned social standing of others.

    *Note, here "social standing" is referring to anything that is not considered a "legal right". An example would be Free dinner at Denny's.

    An example: The founder of Denny's decides that he wants to discriminate based on age and give that group free dinners on Monday night. He targets children, where Children are defined by society as anyone under the age of 12. The 17 year olds petition the state to make the legal definition of children include anyone 17 and under, so that they can get free dinner on Monday. Thus forcing Denny's to change in order to remain consistent with his intended purpose.
    To serve man.

  14. #53
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This is special pleading.
    You are dismissing a valid similarity on the basis of people caring to challenge it. In other words, the "desire fallacy".
    Your counter is thus invalid on two counts.
    It's not a counter. In fact, I was agreeing with you that if it's just a definition it's inherently not immoral. If someone objects to the definition, then it may be immoral but isn't necessarily (it depends on why they are objecting).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    False, bestiality is denied the term of marriage. Based on sexuality and species. (for even if animals were given legal status they would be denied marriage).
    Bestiality is not a sexual orientation. And denial based on species is not part of my premise.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well this is a "for sake of argument" section.
    If it is changing the contract, and you are doing it against their will. I think that is immoral.
    You can agree, or disagree with that moral premise. Then we can continue.
    Since your definition of "change the contract" apparently includes the kinds of changes that would have absolutely no legal effect at all and cause no actual harm, I do not agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The state can not deny something it has no say over. If it is irrelevant, then you can't use it to say that the state is denying gays social standing. Your conclusion doesn't follow. You are here saying the state is denying something that in reality the people are denying. Now moral or not for people to deny it to one group over another, it is irrelevant if you are going to argue for a legal change.
    The government is denying gays legal use of a term that carries a social standing in our society. However the social standing is ultimately granted, it is part of the term "marriage" and to deny gays that term is to deny them something beyond just the word. So "marriage" is not just a word in this instance. That is really my point, "marriage" is MORE than just a word.

    I agreed to make an exception to my premise for "name only" as in it's just a name and nothing more. Legal "marriage" is more than just a name and therefore does not qualify for the exception.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So what, it is not immoral for Denny's to give married couples free meals, or 2 year olds free meals on Monday night.
    By changing the term you would destroy a distinction that people (like Denny's) want to make, and are free to do so without violating any moral law.
    If Denny's denies gay couple what it gives straight couples, it is violating my premise.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes, I understand that perfectly. But my response was in regards to my justification ,that you demanded I offer, for me rejecting a change to my contract. I argued that changing the contract would create an association I am morally opposed too and that engaging in it would constitute hypocrisy on my part. I supported that by giving the smoking analogy, and you applied it to the gov, instead of to the point I was supporting. Which was the reasoning for my moral objection to a change in my contract. Avoiding hypocrisy is a moral justification, and you have repeated that I need to offer a moral objection or premise to justify my objection.
    Hypocrisy is not inherently immoral. If one held a bad moral position and then contradicted it, they would be engaging in hypocrisy while making a moral improvement which is better than not being hypocritical. As an example, if a guy morally opposed interracial marriage but was happy that his child was marrying someone of another race, he would be a hypocrite but that's better than being consistent and opposing his child's interracial marriage.

    So I do not accept the premise "Hypocrisy is immoral" since the hypocritical choice can be a morally positive choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think that it is alright to deny gays for a reason you refuse to acknowledge as "good". Which is for the sole purpose of distinction.
    I have offered several other examples of this exact thing occurring (distinction based on sex) which you have been unable to show as equally immoral and in fact you have fallaciously written off through your special pleading argument, and argument from desire.
    I disagree. Your arguments, as far as I can tell, always boil down to an argument from desire fallacy or some logical flaw. I am unaware of any exceptions and certainly will not accept a bald claim to the contrary.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Second, here is this one laid out more clearly (I hope).
    Moral premises
    1) That your rights end where mine begin.
    2) It is wrong to violate peoples rights unless they have violated the rights of another (or shown that such a thing is immanent).
    I agree with both of these premises assuming that "rights" mean constitutional rights. If you mean something else, then you need to define what "rights" are before I can agree with those premises as forwarded. In the meantime, I will only define "rights" as constitutional rights (it it's not in the constitution, it doesn't count).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So it would go like this.
    Conflicting Moral principle argument
    [INDENT]
    1) There exists a legal contract that was entered into in good faith with certain expectations (the expectation of distinction) as the reason for entering into the contract.
    2) Changing the legal meanings of words in the contract would be against the will of some contract holders, and all contracts would be read under the new meaning.
    3)An unwanted changing of the meaning of words in a contract is a valid legal reason to reject the change.
    4) It is immoral to change meanings of words in contracts without the consent of both sides.
    I will stop you there. Under what moral premise is #4 true?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Personal Moral objection argument
    [INDENT]
    1) One should not equate them-self with sinful behavior, or with what one feels is sinful behavior
    Under what moral premise is this true?


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Argument for earned social standing
    [INDENT]1) Certain groups are distinct from others (in that they are identified)
    2) Any social standing that group has is based on it's actions as a group, and is thus "earned" by the group.
    Heterosexual marriage is not based on the actions of heterosexuals but based on an immutable characteristic that they happen to have. Thus they have not "earned" it.
    Last edited by mican333; July 20th, 2012 at 10:28 AM.

  15. #54
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,039
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    quick reply.. kinda busy
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It's not a counter. In fact, I was agreeing with you that if it's just a definition it's inherently not immoral. If someone objects to the definition, then it may be immoral but isn't necessarily (it depends on why they are objecting).
    O.k. thanks for the clarification.. I'll try to respond to this later.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Bestiality is not a sexual orientation
    This is a line of disagreement here. You are using "sexual orientation" different than I am. For me there is no difference.
    The point however is that based on the nature of sexual relationship other groups are denied the term marriage.
    Which is the same reason gays are denied it. So whatever words you want to attach to it, it is still a legit point.
    To actually object to this point you would have to show that those engaged in bestiality are not denied the term "marriage" because they are having sex with animals. You would have to argue that IF animals were given legal status, that they would have a right to the term "marriage" as well, but further, that they would not ALSO be denied currently based on the fact that they are having sex with animals.

    Basically, because I am making the same argument against those engaged in bestiality, homosexuality is not special in it's denial. They are not the "only" group being denied based on the set of given standards. Thus your moral premise is not violated.

    We could easily argue what "sexual orientation" means, or we can look to the heart of the matter. That the sex act is a relevant factor in the marriage contract... hence why you hetro's are denied the term marriage because they have to many sexual partners, and why one can get out of the contract (so to speak) based on sexual activity with other people.
    So, the heart is that sex matters, who you are having it with etc. and that ultimately Gays are not the only ones rejected on that standard.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Since your definition of "change the contract" apparently includes the kinds of changes that would have absolutely no legal effect at all and cause no actual harm, I do not agree.
    The important point is that it is objected to, not the reasons.. that is a different argument. I separated the arguments as best as I could, so if you have an objection we need to be clear on which one it applies too. Your objection to their reason to exercise their rights doesn't give you just cause to violate their rights.
    So regarding the legal objection you are here arguing that it is o.k. to change a contract without the consent of the other party in an area where they would object to the change... .That is significant and violates the argument and premises I forwarded regarding it. I would like to see you apply that reasoning to that argument.


    4) It is immoral to change meanings of words in contracts without the consent of both sides.
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I will stop you there. Under what moral premise is #4 true?
    It exceeds the rights of the one changing the contract and infringes on the rights of another. Contracts recognize the rights of both, and you have a right both legal and moral to have a say regarding ANY changes to your contract regarding meaning.
    As it violates the rights premises, I assumed (my mistake) that it was given that violating the rights of others is immoral...
    Given the above.. You must disagree with that premise?

    1) One should not equate them-self with sinful behavior, or with what one feels is sinful behavior
    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    Under what moral premise is this true?
    It is the moral premise
    Under the idea that we should avoid what we feel is sinful behavior.
    It may be better read as Not to be equated with sinful behavior.

    If you disagree with the premise.
    I would like to know what kind of moral structure finds it morally acceptable to be equated with sinful behavior.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Heterosexual marriage is not based on the actions of heterosexuals but based on an immutable characteristic that they happen to have. Thus they have not "earned" it.
    That does not address my point. I am talking about the "social standing" that becomes associated by a group, you are addressing the connection of the term to the group. You are not addressing my point here at all. Please try again. The social standing of the name is no more an immutable characteristic of the name than your objection. So you are really failing here to make a meaningful objection to the argument.
    To serve man.

  16. #55
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    SF,CA
    Posts
    2,133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Once that is changed, the meaning is gone and an new one established.
    A mind trap for MindTrap, courtesy of Sudden Clarity Clarence:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	3q0mkm.jpg 
Views:	29 
Size:	56.4 KB 
ID:	3210

  17. Likes Dionysus liked this post
  18. #56
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This is a line of disagreement here. You are using "sexual orientation" different than I am. For me there is no difference.
    Then you are not using the term "sexual orientation" correctly.

    "sexual orientation 
    noun
    one's natural preference in sexual partners; predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality."

    http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...al+orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The point however is that based on the nature of sexual relationship other groups are denied the term marriage.
    Which is the same reason gays are denied it. So whatever words you want to attach to it, it is still a legit point.
    To actually object to this point you would have to show that those engaged in bestiality are not denied the term "marriage" because they are having sex with animals.
    They are denied marriage to animals for amongst other reasons, animals cannot consent to marriage. So regardless animal-marriages definitely falls outside of my premise. My premise mentions sexual orientation, gender, and race, but not species


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    We could easily argue what "sexual orientation" means, or we can look to the heart of the matter. That the sex act is a relevant factor in the marriage contract... hence why you hetro's are denied the term marriage because they have to many sexual partners, and why one can get out of the contract (so to speak) based on sexual activity with other people.
    So, the heart is that sex matters, who you are having it with etc. and that ultimately Gays are not the only ones rejected on that standard.
    But they are the only ones who are denied it based on sexual orientation as it is correctly defined or at the very least defined in my premise.

    If you stray from the definitions used in my premise then you are straying from my stated premise.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It exceeds the rights of the one changing the contract and infringes on the rights of another. Contracts recognize the rights of both, and you have a right both legal and moral to have a say regarding ANY changes to your contract regarding meaning.
    As it violates the rights premises, I assumed (my mistake) that it was given that violating the rights of others is immoral
    The only "rights" premise I currently accept is that it's immoral to violate someone's constitutional rights so if that is what you mean, then yes, it's a given.

    And assuming that's what you mean then I ask you to Support or retract that there would be a violation of one's constitutional rights. And such support will require you to tell me which specific constitutional right is being violated (The first? The fourth? The thirteenth?) and how it is being legally violated.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    1) One should not equate them-self with sinful behavior, or with what one feels is sinful behavior

    It is the moral premise
    Under the idea that we should avoid what we feel is sinful behavior.
    It may be better read as Not to be equated with sinful behavior.
    So as an example, The Taliban consider allowing women to go to school to be "sinful behavior".

    Since I disagree that the Taliban morally should always refrain from behavior that they consider sinful, I cannot accept the premise that "one should avoid what they feel is sinful behavior".


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That does not address my point. I am talking about the "social standing" that becomes associated by a group, you are addressing the connection of the term to the group. You are not addressing my point here at all. Please try again. The social standing of the name is no more an immutable characteristic of the name than your objection. So you are really failing here to make a meaningful objection to the argument.
    But you are still using the term "earned" and you earn something when you've done something that morally deserves consideration. Heterosexuals have done NOTHING to morally earn the exclusive title of marriage and the social standing that goes along with it. I mean what did you, based ONLY on your sexual orientation, do to earn it? I will take your word for it that you are good and loyal husband and father and therefore you've "earned" the term marriage that way but that has nothing to do with your being straight. Your heterosexuality has not morally earned you anything at all. It just what you are and it "earned" you the social status of marriage as much as your right-handedness earned you the social status of marriage.
    Last edited by mican333; July 22nd, 2012 at 06:31 AM.

  19. #57
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,039
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Then you are not using the term "sexual orientation" correctly.

    "sexual orientation 
    noun
    one's natural preference in sexual partners; predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality."
    Right, because the term doesn't reflect the bases on which gays are denied marriage. The reason is not limited to "sexual orientation".
    It is based on not being a sexual relationship described by marriage. And on that principle many others are denied.
    so, your premise describes a straw-man version of the reason gays are not included in marriage. It is thus invalid to apply it.

    In short, one is not denied marriage based on his sexual preference between gay or bi, but on the basis that the specific sexual partners are not described by marriage in it's social identification context.



    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    They are denied marriage to animals for amongst other reasons, animals cannot consent to marriage. So regardless animal-marriages definitely falls outside of my premise. My premise mentions sexual orientation, gender, and race, but not species
    The other reasons are irrelevant to the point that they are denied based on the sex act not being in line with what is described by marriage. This is clear when we grant that if all other reasons were ignored, they would still not be described by marriage based on that reason. If your list is intended to be exclusive of all other reasons, but then that is really defining a premise around the idea you are objecting too IMO. I believe you are special pleading by excluding the valid point that animals are also denied for one of the same reasons gays are.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The only "rights" premise I currently accept is that it's immoral to violate someone's constitutional rights so if that is what you mean, then yes, it's a given.

    And assuming that's what you mean then I ask you to Support or retract that there would be a violation of one's constitutional rights. And such support will require you to tell me which specific constitutional right is being violated (The first? The fourth? The thirteenth?) and how it is being legally violated.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Since I disagree that the Taliban morally should always refrain from behavior that they consider sinful, I cannot accept the premise that "one should avoid what they feel is sinful behavior".
    You are not applying this consistently. It is not "others should always act ... yada.. yada". It is about you.
    So unless you are going to say that YOU should act in a way other than your morality dictates.. you have not formed a valid objection to the premise.

    This can be demonstrated by this question.

    Should you always act according to the moral objection you have formed towards the taliban?

    Basically, you have to show a point where your morality dictates that your morality be violated. Which is a contradiction and impossible.
    thus you can not show such a thing and the moral premise I forward is undeniable.



    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But you are still using the term "earned" and you earn something when you've done something that morally deserves consideration. Heterosexuals have done NOTHING to morally earn the exclusive title of marriage and the social standing that goes along with it.
    You are not addressing my point in the slightest. I did not say the earned "marriage", I am speaking to the social standing earned by the group (possibly arbitrarily) identified as "married".
    This is to set aside the "word" marriage, and target the "effect" that comes with it. We have agreed that if it were only a word then there would be no case to include gays. You then argued that it was more than a word.
    I'm trying to point out here that all that is more than a word is earned by the group.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I mean what did you, based ONLY on your sexual orientation, do to earn it? I will take your word for it that you are good and loyal husband and father and therefore you've "earned" the term marriage that way but that has nothing to do with your being straight. Your heterosexuality has not morally earned you anything at all. It just what you are and it "earned" you the social status of marriage as much as your right-handedness earned you the social status of marriage.
    This is more of the same down the wrong line of understanding.

    Think of it like this.
    I didn't earn the name "Mind Trap", but I have earned the social standing attributed to the word "Mind Trap" here on ODN. So unless you think that any social standing is inherent to a specific name, then your objections are not valid responses to my point. What you are thus arguing is akin to including 3 other people in the term "mind Trap" and giving them my reputation points. Which destroys the meaning of "Mind Trap" and negates the purpose the reputation points were given to begin with.



    ---CONSTIONAL RIGHTS

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    The only "rights" premise I currently accept is that it's immoral to violate someone's constitutional rights so if that is what you mean, then yes, it's a given.

    And assuming that's what you mean then I ask you to Support or retract that there would be a violation of one's constitutional rights. And such support will require you to tell me which specific constitutional right is being violated (The first? The fourth? The thirteenth?) and how it is being legally violated.
    So, before we go down this road I want to know exactly what your objection is.
    Is it the case that you do not believe a person has a constitutionally protected say regarding changes to their contracts, specifically changes that they object to?

    Is it the case that you don't think the constitution protects contracts at all?
    To serve man.

  20. #58
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    In short, one is not denied marriage based on his sexual preference between gay or bi, but on the basis that the specific sexual partners are not described by marriage in it's social identification context.
    Are you really attempting to divorce sexual orientation from the gender of one's partner? I really don't want to engage in that argument. If you think a man loving a man is not equated to a particular sexual orientation, your opinion is noted.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The other reasons are irrelevant to the point that they are denied based on the sex act not being in line with what is described by marriage. This is clear when we grant that if all other reasons were ignored, they would still not be described by marriage based on that reason. If your list is intended to be exclusive of all other reasons, but then that is really defining a premise around the idea you are objecting too IMO. I believe you are special pleading by excluding the valid point that animals are also denied for one of the same reasons gays are.
    The difference is is that there is good reason to deny animals and there is no good reason to deny gays.

    Let me introduce a premise - "Marriage should only consist of consenting partners". Since we can assume that a significant majority of people agree with it, it counts as a valid premise in this debate. Since animal marriage violates that premise, we have good reason to reject animal marriage. That premise does not apply to gay marriage so the premise does not provide a good reason to reject gay marriage.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You are not applying this consistently. It is not "others should always act ... yada.. yada". It is about you.
    So unless you are going to say that YOU should act in a way other than your morality dictates.. you have not formed a valid objection to the premise.
    Here is your premise: "One should not equate them-self with sinful behavior, or with what one feels is sinful behavior"

    That clearly applies to everyone. "One" is the person who is considering the sinful behavior, be it you, me, or a member of The Taliban. If one considers the issue, the premise says that they should not equate them-self with sinful behavior, or with what one feels is sinful behavior.

    And if that is not what the premise is stating, then re-state it with what you actually meant.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You are not addressing my point in the slightest. I did not say the earned "marriage". I am speaking to the social standing earned by the group (possibly arbitrarily) identified as "married". We have agreed that if it were only a word then there would be no case to include gays. You then argued that it was more than a word.
    I'm trying to point out here that all that is more than a word is earned by the group.
    I understand that. And I am not arguing that they did not earn marriage (although I did earlier). I am arguing that that they did not, as a distinct group, earn the social status or, even more to the point, anything at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Think of it like this.
    I didn't earn the name "Mind Trap", but I have earned the social standing attributed to the word "Mind Trap" here on ODN.
    Right. But you earned your social standing by your actions which is regularly presenting quality arguments at ODN. You did not earn your social standing by being a heterosexual.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So unless you think that any social standing is inherent to a specific name, then your objections are not valid responses to my point. What you are thus arguing is akin to including 3 other people in the term "mind Trap" and giving them my reputation points. Which destroys the meaning of "Mind Trap" and negates the purpose the reputation points were given to begin with.
    But the reason that they don't deserve your reputation points is that you did something to earn them and they did not.

    As I said numerous times and it is as relevant now as it was the first time I posted it. You EARN something by taking an action that deserves a certain consideration (remember that). You took specific actions to earn your points. As far as marriage goes, I'm sure you're a fine husband and have done plenty to earn the social standing of marriage but that has nothing to do with your sexual orientation and everything to do with your behavior towards your family. And a gay man who acts exactly the same towards his family as you do to yours has earned every consideration that you have. Unless you are arguing that just being heterosexual earns you additional consideration, that is.

    So the question is what have straight people done to morally earn anything (marriage, social standing, a puppy, a nickel, whatever) that gays didn't do. If the answer is "nothing" then no one has earned anything that the the others did not earn as well.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, before we go down this road I want to know exactly what your objection is.
    My exact objection to your argument is that it is not supported.

    So support or retract that the "change in contract", as you have defined it, will violate someone's constitutional rights.

    But to clarify, I don't even quite know where how you are arriving at the conclusion you have concerning "rights" so I don't care to attack the specifics of what I consider an incredibly vague argument. If you support your argument, then I will have a better understanding of what you mean and therefore will be more capable of generating a relevant rebuttal. I feel I have good reason to seek support before I have any obligation to tackle your argument more directly. That is just my opinion, of course, but regardless when asked to support or retract an argument you only have two options - support or retract.
    Last edited by mican333; July 22nd, 2012 at 09:43 PM.

  21. #59
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,039
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Are you really attempting to divorce sexual orientation from the gender of one's partner? I really don't want to engage in that argument. If you think a man loving a man is not equated to a particular sexual orientation, your opinion is noted.
    No, I'm saying that is not the reason they do not fulfill marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The difference is is that there is good reason to deny animals and there is no good reason to deny gays.

    Let me introduce a premise - "Marriage should only consist of consenting partners". Since we can assume that a significant majority of people agree with it, it counts as a valid premise in this debate. Since animal marriage violates that premise, we have good reason to reject animal marriage. That premise does not apply to gay marriage so the premise does not provide a good reason to reject gay marriage.
    That is irrelevant to the point I'm making. There are admittedly many valid reasons to reject animal marriage.
    I am talking about one of them that is also in common with gays, which you are saying is a special case to gays.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Here is your premise: "One should not equate them-self with sinful behavior, or with what one feels is sinful behavior"

    That clearly applies to everyone. "One" is the person who is considering the sinful behavior, be it you, me, or a member of The Taliban. If one considers the issue, the premise says that they should not equate them-self with sinful behavior, or with what one feels is sinful behavior.

    And if that is not what the premise is stating, then re-state it with what you actually meant.
    no, that is what I was saying, but you were objecting by saying you think they shouldn't always adhere to that.
    In doing so you are using your own moral compass and relying on the premise as well, unless you don't think that you should always think they should not.

    You see?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I understand that. And I am not arguing that they did not earn marriage (although I did earlier). I am arguing that that they did not, as a distinct group, earn the social status or, even more to the point, anything at all.
    What is a specific social status that marriage gets, that married people as a group has not earned?
    The example I have in my mind (and correct me if this doesn't qualify) is the ridicule marriage suffers based on the high divorce rate.
    This is clearly due to the actions of the group, and is entirely based on the actions of the group. Thus the group has clearly "earned" the social standing of ridicule.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Right. But you earned your social standing by your actions which is regularly presenting quality arguments at ODN. You did not earn your social standing by being a heterosexual.
    That is irrelevant to this point. This is about social standings of any given group. The basis for naming that group or identifying it are irrelevant to this portion.

    Unless the factor used to identify a specific group is so flawed that it doesn't identify anyone, you can not argue that the factor was not sufficient to create the group and thus allow for that group to earn any social standing.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But the reason that they don't deserve your reputation points is that you did something to earn them and they did not.

    As I said numerous times and it is as relevant now as it was the first time I posted it. You EARN something by taking an action that deserves a certain consideration (remember that). You took specific actions to earn your points. As far as marriage goes, I'm sure you're a fine husband and have done plenty to earn the social standing of marriage but that has nothing to do with your sexual orientation and everything to do with your behavior towards your family. And a gay man who acts exactly the same towards his family as you do to yours has earned every consideration that you have. Unless you are arguing that just being heterosexual earns you additional consideration, that is.

    So the question is what have straight people done to morally earn anything (marriage, social standing, a puppy, a nickel, whatever) that gays didn't do. If the answer is "nothing" then no one has earned anything that the the others did not earn as well.
    I am not arguing that Hetro's "earn" marriage. I argued that the social standing that "marriage" carries is earned by the group whom it identifies.
    Marriage identifies a specific group, and one either fulfills the term or it does not.

    We see something very similar to this around where here (where I live) with older people. Your family name is an identifier. Someone will see a kid working hard, and say "that's a mind trap there". Again, nothing done to "earn" the name or title, it is given on the basis of fulfilling what it means to be the identifier. As with family names it could be arbitrary, and it is still valid.

    Same with marriage. The criteria could be arbitrary as to who fits it, but the social standing that it has and carries is created by those whom it identifies, and earned by the group.

    So giving the social standing carried by the identifier to those whom it was never intended to identify is exactly like taking my points and giving them to others.

    I argue that Hetro's fulfill the definition of "marriage", and the social standings of marriage has been earned by the group as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    My exact objection to your argument is that it is not supported.

    So support or retract that the "change in contract", as you have defined it, will violate someone's constitutional rights.

    But to clarify, I don't even quite know where how you are arriving at the conclusion you have concerning "rights" so I don't care to attack the specifics of what I consider an incredibly vague argument. If you support your argument, then I will have a better understanding of what you mean and therefore will be more capable of generating a relevant rebuttal. I feel I have good reason to seek support before I have any obligation to tackle your argument more directly. That is just my opinion, of course, but regardless when asked to support or retract an argument you only have two options - support or retract.
    That is fine, my real concern was to establish your disagreement with the premise(not necessarily your reason for it). The way I see it you can agree with the premise and still maintain that it isn't a change and thus doesn't fall under the premise.
    I was really trying to avoid some constitutional debate. I think in order to avoid a const debate, I will forward it as a premise you can accept or reject and we can just agree to disagree on that point.

    I'm out of time so... we will see.
    To serve man.

  22. #60
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is irrelevant to the point I'm making. There are admittedly many valid reasons to reject animal marriage.
    I am talking about one of them that is also in common with gays.
    Which, as far as I can tell is (copied directly from a prior post of yours) "It is based on not being a sexual relationship described by marriage."

    I don't believe that it is a legally or morally valid reason for banning any marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    no, that is what I was saying, but you were objecting by saying you think they shouldn't always adhere to that.
    But I assume that you would agree with me on that. Do you think that the Taliban SHOULD force women to refrain from education?

    And even if you do, I established that a good moral premise is one that a significant majority agree with. I do that to offer some "objectivity" to what is an acceptable moral premise. I do not forward that such a premise is indeed objective but if it's an objective fact that most people agree with a premise, that is provable so I think it's reasonable to say it's a good moral premise (and so neither of us can just subjectively disagree with it to invalidate it).

    And I think it's pretty obvious that a majority do not agree that the Taliban should do whatever they think is avoiding sin and therefore a premise that says they should do that is not a valid moral premise.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What is a specific social status that marriage gets, that married people as a group has not earned?
    The example I have in my mind (and correct me if this doesn't qualify) is the ridicule marriage suffers based on the high divorce rate.
    This is clearly due to the actions of the group, and is entirely based on the actions of the group. Thus the group has clearly "earned" the social standing of ridicule.
    But they haven't earned it as heterosexuals. In other words, their heterosexuality is not what lead to the divorce rate so they have not earned the ridicule because they are heterosexuals. So heterosexuals, as a distinct group, have not earned any ridicule at all. I'd say their strengths and flaws are related to them being human beings so human beings have earned the social status of marriage (for better or worse). And since gays are human beings as well, they deserve the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Unless the factor used to identify a specific group is so flawed that it doesn't identify anyone, you can not argue that the factor was not sufficient to create the group and thus allow for that group to earn any social standing.
    If the factor does not earn social standing for a group, the factor is irrelevant to whether the group deserves social standing.

    Everyone who marries has a liver. So does having a liver earn you the social standing of marriage? Of course not - it just so happens that everyone who participated in marriage has one but no one deserves any consideration just because they have a liver.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    We see something very similar to this around where here (where I live) with older people. Your family name is an identifier. Someone will see a kid working hard, and say "that's a mind trap there". Again, nothing done to "earn" the name or title, it is given on the basis of fulfilling what it means to be the identifier. As with family names it could be arbitrary, and it is still valid.
    So because Mind Traps took the ACTION of working hard, they EARNED the social status of a hard working family.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Same with marriage. The criteria could be arbitrary as to who fits it, but the social standing that it has and carries is created by those whom it identifies, and earned by the group.
    Not according to the premise that "One earns something by taking an action that deserves a certain consideration".

    Just because a group has something does not mean that they earned it. One can conceivably have something that they did not earn.

    So let me lay this out logically.

    1. One only earns something by taking action that morally deserves the consideration of that something
    2. Straights have taken no action, as a group, to earn a particular social standing
    3. Therefore straights, as a group, do not deserve a particular social standing

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is fine, my real concern was to establish your disagreement with the premise(not necessarily your reason for it). The way I see it you can agree with the premise and still maintain that it isn't a change and thus doesn't fall under the premise.
    I was really trying to avoid some constitutional debate. I think in order to avoid a const debate, I will forward it as a premise you can accept or reject and we can just agree to disagree on that point.
    If we aren't going to consider "rights" to be constitutional rights then as far as I can tell what "rights" are have not been determined for this debate. So that leaves only two option on what rights are. They are either:

    1. Constitutional rights
    2. Undefined rights

    If we use #1, I agree with your premise but challenge you to show that such a violation would occur.
    If we use #2 I disagree with your premise for I do not agree that violating undefined rights is necessarily immoral.

    You have the option of introducing an alternative definition of "rights" and if I agree with that, then we can have a #3 definition. But until then it's either 1 or 2 and either way, you have not made the case that something immoral will happen.
    Last edited by mican333; July 23rd, 2012 at 08:33 AM.

 

 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 116
    Last Post: January 26th, 2013, 04:38 PM
  2. Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument
    By Apokalupsis in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: October 17th, 2011, 05:43 AM
  3. Gay Marriage, Gay Adoption
    By LeeshaForeverr in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 327
    Last Post: August 17th, 2008, 02:01 PM
  4. Gay Marriage
    By Booger in forum Politics
    Replies: 287
    Last Post: January 30th, 2008, 12:09 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •