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 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 166
  1. #121
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    I think that if you want to claim something has happened, you need to show that it happened. More specifically, if you want to claim that something has failed, you need to show that it has failed. It’s a very basic matter of supporting your claim.
    Well, I did offer one of my supporting reasoning in post 106
    But it wasn't sanctioned because it was failed, people didn't want it that is a failure of that system
    "It's like if you are trying to sell a gaming system and no one buys it.. that is a failed gaming system. It is most clear that it is a failed gaming system by contrasting it to the success of others. Like Nintendo selling a billion systems, and you can't sell on just shows how badly you failed."

    So, I am attempting to support my point in this thread. You rejected my support, and was asking for me to show an example where it failed according to your perimeters. IE being tried and then rejected.
    Which is a different form of argument and I dispute it as the only valid form of support for the claim that it is a failed system.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    I think Clive said it best, but I’ll try to say it again differently.

    Your claim seems to be that the definition of marriage is contingent on procreation. That is, the definition of marriage could not exist without it. This is plainly false.

    Yes, marriage consists of a number of associated behaviors (sexual intercourse, property ownership, procreation, raising children, etc). But we know that couples will balance these activities according to their desires and abilities, and so there's no clear line between how many of these you have to be capable of doing before the relationship becomes something other than "marriage".

    If we look at a married couple who could not, for example, have intercourse, this would not change the fact that they’re married by definition. Therefore, it could certainly be the case that a couple (gay or straight) who is physically incapable of procreation could be legally married and they would still be married by definition despite the fact that they entered the relationship fully aware that procreation is physically unavailable to them.

    So, if you can show how making marriage available to people who cannot procreate changes the definition of marriage because they cannot procreate, then I can see where you’re coming from. But so far I can’t see where you’ve done that.
    I believe this line of debate stems from me pointing to procreation being a part of marriage that has made it successful as a system.
    You have argued that procreation is not "necessarily" a part of marriage.

    but I don't think you have reasonably shown that marriages strength in procreation is not part of its' success.
    Or that Procreation and marriage are some how separate ideas.

    You are correct in the most strict sense that a couple doesn't have to give birth to children or have them in order to be considered "married", but that doesn't negate the fact that their "marriage" has allowances in the idea of marriage itself to deal with that event should it occur even unplanned.
    evidenced of course by every surprise pregnancy ever, which didn't require a change in their terms of marriage.

    Again, i refer back to my unused drivers seat, or back seat if you wish to demote it's importance. The point is it's still part of the larger institution.

    ---
    Now, about showing that if procreation is removed from the definition of marriage altogether.

    I think it is pretty clear that such a divorce of ideas in this case would be very problematic, and would be such a vast change so as to make those from history who could look upon this new idea seeing it as something totally different.

    First, getting married would not imply a desire to procreate. As it is, that issue is something that individuals must clarify between themselves. In other words, if you get married and your spouse gets pregnant, you are damn unreasonable to say "I never agreed to have children with you" because that is part of the current marriage concept.
    So as we divorce those ideas, the converse would be true.


    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Well, that’s fine. Take out the word “Christian” and replace it with “society” and nothing changes, really. I don’t see how allowing same-sex marriage impinges the incentives for people to marry, thus I don’t see the logical connection between same-sex marriage and a reduction in marriage rates (or an increase in divorce rates).
    You don't think religion has driven people to get married?
    You don't think that removing the religious connotations from the social/legal term will cause people to no longer feel religiously compelled to get it?
    I mean, it would become no different to the religious than a LLC. Zero religious implications.

    I have a hard time believing you can't see the connection. .. especially as I am pointing it out several times.


    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    I wasn’t surprised at your simply bringing up rights. I was struck by the context in which you brought them up. Paraphrasing, you said something like “Wait, I thought they [gay marriage proponents] were fighting to protect rights…” to which I said (again, paraphrasing) “They’re not fighting to protect rights; they’re fighting for access to certain rights."

    I urge you to go back to that exchange and I’m confident you will see that is the case.
    I think you are correct, I just see them as the same context.
    I think I see my error.
    When you spoke of "access to fundamental rights" you weren't speaking about a "right to be married" but the rights that marriage currently gives access to.

    If that is the case then, I apologize for the mix up on my part, and point out that if that were the real argument they were offering, they would be content with another word being applied to them which conveyed the desired rights (of which I am a proponent of that solution).

    ---------- Post added at 09:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    No. I did not say NU HUH. You brought up that we are talking about the government's usage of a term. I did not say "NU HUH, we are not talking about that." We ARE talking about that and my point is that there's not a problem with the government using a term if the term is based on the definition that the people use.
    But it's not. People aren't voting on how the gov uses it, and in teh suprem court the ultimate desicision for how the gov uses the term is going to be about how it squares with the const.
    So I don't see your point holding any watter here.
    Same goes for the past changes, even if the gov has been using it X way for the past Y years, that change wasn't driven by the peoples change in use. As it is many people are just asleep on the issue and will just wake up to the term being used different than they are used to and being forced to accept it on penalty of law.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Considering the government is suppose to represent the people, the more the government's terminology coincides with the terminology that the people use, the better. So when the people accept both religious and atheist marriage as "marriage", that's a good reason government to expand its definition of marriage to include both types of marriage and adopt new definition.
    the secret is, they accepted it for two different reasons all this time. Christians have been accepting it on religious reasons and understanding.
    The result has been read as something much different then what they were intending.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So I AM talking about the government's terminology and have SUPPORTED that it's alright for the government to define both religious and atheist marriages as "marriage".

    So that point is SUPPORTED and it stands until you offer a rebuttal.
    So let it be written, so let it be done.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Right. And then I rebutted all of your arguments.

    So you can rebut my rebuttals or let some or all of them stand.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  2. Thanks Dionysus thanked for this post
  3. #122
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    You are correct in the most strict sense that a couple doesn't have to give birth to children or have them in order to be considered "married", but that doesn't negate the fact that their "marriage" has allowances in the idea of marriage itself to deal with that event should it occur even unplanned.
    evidenced of course by every surprise pregnancy ever, which didn't require a change in their terms of marriage.

    Again, i refer back to my unused drivers seat, or back seat if you wish to demote it's importance. The point is it's still part of the larger institution.
    The question is whether the inability of a couple to procreate makes it so that couple can't marry. That is you argument here: same-sex couples can't procreate, so they shouldn't be entitled to the legal protection of marriage.

    But this is clearly false in the case of oppose-sex couples that don't have the capacity to procreate. So why can opposite-sex infertile couples be married, but not same-sex infertile couples?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  4. #123
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    The question is whether the inability of a couple to procreate makes it so that couple can't marry. That is you argument here: same-sex couples can't procreate, so they shouldn't be entitled to the legal protection of marriage.
    I thought my argument was that the success of marriage as a system is partly because of it's ability to procreate(not to the exclusion of all others, but in a way most beneficial to society), and that the failure of homosexuality as a system has been because of it's failure to self perpetuate. started somewhere around post 85ish.

    I thought dio's objection was based on separating procreation from the marriage system.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  5. #124
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I thought my argument was that the success of marriage as a system is partly because of it's ability to procreate(not to the exclusion of all others, but in a way most beneficial to society), and that the failure of homosexuality as a system has been because of it's failure to self perpetuate. started somewhere around post 85ish.
    Okay, but that doesn't really answer the question. Same-sex couples aren't going to reproduce with one another regardless of whether they're married. Additionally, same-sex couples can have children through surrogates (either a surrogate mother or a sperm donor).

    If being able to procreate with one another is such a crucial aspect of marriage that same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, what is your position on infertile opposite-sex couples being able to marry?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  6. #125
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,676
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    But it's not.
    Yes it is. Let's make sure this point is settled. SOCIETY, as in pretty much everyone, agrees that if atheists have a non-secular marriage ceremony they are indeed married and should be seen as such by both society and the government. There is no 60/40 split on this. There is no significant split at all. It's pretty much societal consensus that atheist marriages are, by definition, marriages.

    And I LITERALLY mean "by definition".

    "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law"

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

    As you may note, the first, and therefore primary, definition makes no mention of religion.

    I would like you to either acknowledge this point (the specific statement in bold) as accurate or challenge it. I just want to settle on whether this point is contested or accepted as I'm not sure right now.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    People aren't voting on how the gov uses it, and in teh suprem court the ultimate desicision for how the gov uses the term is going to be about how it squares with the const.
    So I don't see your point holding any watter here.
    Same goes for the past changes, even if the gov has been using it X way for the past Y years, that change wasn't driven by the peoples change in use. As it is many people are just asleep on the issue and will just wake up to the term being used different than they are used to and being forced to accept it on penalty of law.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the government is using the term differently than what people are CURRENTLY used to.

    I have amply supported that society generally recognizes secular marriage as "marriage" so the government using that definition is not using a definition that people are not used to.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    the secret is, they accepted it for two different reasons all this time. Christians have been accepting it on religious reasons and understanding.
    The result has been read as something much different then what they were intending.
    Maybe different than what Christians over a century ago were intending…

    But again, the ONLY time I EVER heard of anyone complain that the government was using the word "marriage" to recognize marriages of non-Christians is in thread by you. That's ONE person. And you are perfectly free to argue what you believe in right and wrong on your own behalf. But if you are going to attempt to speak for others, you will need to support that others hold the same belief in significant enough numbers to be a legitimate concern.

    As it is, I completely reject the notion that Christians in general have a problem with this and will need to see support equal to the support I gave showing the society (that is mostly Christian) is generally alright with it before I will even consider it as a valid notion.
    Last edited by mican333; May 5th, 2015 at 09:16 AM.

  7. #126
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, I did offer one of my supporting reasoning in post 106.
    Right, but you showed how certain gaming systems have been tried and have failed. You didn’t show where same-sex marriage has been tried and has failed. That’s a very important distinction if you want to strengthen your point that same-sex marriage is a “failed system”. Saying "This system will not work" is entirely different than saying "This system does not work" or "This system has failed to work".

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I believe this line of debate stems from me pointing to procreation being a part of marriage that has made it successful as a system.
    You have argued that procreation is not "necessarily" a part of marriage.

    but I don't think you have reasonably shown that marriages strength in procreation is not part of its' success.
    Or that Procreation and marriage are some how separate ideas.
    Well, frankly, you need to make up your mind, here.

    First, I’ve never made any comment or implication for or against about how procreation has contributed to the success of marriage. I’ve not done that because I don’t see how that matters to my point, which is that the definition of marriage isn’t contingent on procreation (even though procreation is understood to be closely associated with marriage as a social practice).

    Second, here you’re suggesting that I somehow need to prove that marriage and procreation are separate ideas, when I said quite plainly in this post that this is not what I’m saying.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You are correct in the most strict sense that a couple doesn't have to give birth to children or have them in order to be considered "married"…
    YES. RIGHT. STOP RIGHT THERE.

    So that’s the entire point. I won’t repeat what Clive has asked in his most recent post, because I have the exact same question.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First, getting married would not imply a desire to procreate.
    Well, that’s not what I’m saying. Here’s what I said:

    “I don’t see how allowing same-sex marriage impinges the incentives for people to marry.”

    So, I’m not saying that getting married must mean that you want to procreate (or even that it implies that you do). I’m saying that I have no reason to think that allowing same-sex marriage would diminish the incentives people have for getting married. That is to say, irrespective of same-sex marriage, people have a number of legal and personal reasons (incentives) to want to get married and/or to remain married, and I don’t see how allowing same-sex marriage diminishes or removes with those reasons (incentives).

    In other words, if two, unmarried opposite-sex people have legal and personal reasons (or incentives) to want to get married, how does their knowledge that gays can also marry diminish or remove those reasons (incentives)?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You don't think religion has driven people to get married?


    Again, this is not what I said. I’m not contesting whether religion has driven people to get married. I’m asking how allowing MORE people to get married drives people to NOT get married.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think you are correct, I just see them as the same context.
    I think I see my error.
    When you spoke of "access to fundamental rights" you weren't speaking about a "right to be married" but the rights that marriage currently gives access to.
    Yes, exactly (thanks for the apology, BTW).

    SCOTUS recognizes that the right to marriage a fundamental right: “Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.”. Because they are fundamental rights, they should be accessible to all people. So arguing that gay people cannot marry on any of the bases presented so far is essentially defining constitutional rights in terms of the kinds of people that can exercise those fundamental rights.

  8. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  9. #127
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    @ DIO.. short post, the rest later.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Well, that’s not what I’m saying. Here’s what I said:

    “I don’t see how allowing same-sex marriage impinges the incentives for people to marry.”

    So, I’m not saying that getting married must mean that you want to procreate (or even that it implies that you do). I’m saying that I have no reason to think that allowing same-sex marriage would diminish the incentives people have for getting married. That is to say, irrespective of same-sex marriage, people have a number of legal and personal reasons (incentives) to want to get married and/or to remain married, and I don’t see how allowing same-sex marriage diminishes or removes with those reasons (incentives).

    In other words, if two, unmarried opposite-sex people have legal and personal reasons (or incentives) to want to get married, how does their knowledge that gays can also marry diminish or remove those reasons (incentives)?
    Well, to be clear I did list a specific motivation/incentive, and I did explain how it would be deminished or disapear alltogether.

    It just so happens that this incentive is the specific reason I got "legally" married, or in other words chose to apply the legal definition to my personal life.

    That specific reason is that the legal meaning was in line with the religious meaning. IE it was a religious term being used by the gov.

    So, take away the religious context of the legal term (which has been argued actually occured 30ish years ago) and you have effectivly removed A motivation to apply the legal term to self.



    So, I do believe I have met every reasonable qualification for providing the connection you are asking for, and several times.
    IMO in order for me to consider that I have not met or answered your question directly, you must explain to me.

    1) How the above is not or has not been an incentive for people(straits/religious) to get married.
    or
    2) How the actual divorce of the legal term from the religious term is does not diminish or erase that specific incentive.
    or.
    3) some other explanation that you are aware of, that I am ignorant of or have ignored.

    An assumption of the above is that there is no "single" reason for people get married, but that the above is, and has been A reason.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  10. #128
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, to be clear I did list a specific motivation/incentive, and I did explain how it would be deminished or disapear alltogether.

    It just so happens that this incentive is the specific reason I got "legally" married, or in other words chose to apply the legal definition to my personal life.

    That specific reason is that the legal meaning was in line with the religious meaning. IE it was a religious term being used by the gov.

    So, take away the religious context of the legal term (which has been argued actually occured 30ish years ago) and you have effectivly removed A motivation to apply the legal term to self.



    So, I do believe I have met every reasonable qualification for providing the connection you are asking for, and several times.
    IMO in order for me to consider that I have not met or answered your question directly, you must explain to me.

    1) How the above is not or has not been an incentive for people(straits/religious) to get married.
    or
    2) How the actual divorce of the legal term from the religious term is does not diminish or erase that specific incentive.
    or.
    3) some other explanation that you are aware of, that I am ignorant of or have ignored.

    An assumption of the above is that there is no "single" reason for people get married, but that the above is, and has been A reason.
    Well, as I recall, that's quite different than the reasons you mentioned earlier. That is, earlier you seemed to be suggesting that allowing same-sex marriage erodes society in such a way that leads to less marriage, more divorce, more promiscuity, and more single-parenting. Now you're saying that, for you, it wouldn't have been that per se, but rather, you and your wife would have simply chosen not to be married. Recall also that, in the earlier hypothetical you described with your wife, you were describing something like a common-law relationship, where you lived together, were faithful and raised children, but simply didn't get married.

    So, I guess there's three things, here:

    1. You haven't really shown a connection between same-sex marriage and the sort of consequences you seemed to be talking about at first and...

    2. ...even if you could show that what you're talking about now could come to pass, in terms of equal application of rights, what you're describing is more or less the equivalent of someone refusing to go to church for ruling racial segregation unconstitutional. I don't see how someone essentially throwing a fit over a certain kind of people exercising their equal rights means that those people should not have those rights.

    3. Why on earth would how the state views a thing cause your religious views regarding that thing to change, especially when you believe that marriage is first and foremost a religious institution? If SCOTUS rule that the definition of religion was "Islam", would that cause you to abandon Christianity? How does a secular position on a thing undermine your religious beliefs about that thing?

  11. #129
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post

    1. You haven't really shown a connection between same-sex marriage and the sort of consequences you seemed to be talking about at first and...
    Excuse the interjection but it does appear that there are gay men who would marry and have children because they are not given the option either by their religion or social norms. Michelle Bachman's not-gay husband on the surface appears to be one and there are plenty of examples of Republican anti-gay politicians who turn out to be gay.

    We won't really know for a long time the effects of freely allowing gay men to live their natural lives without procreating but it's certainly not going to be zero. I for one, don't really care - it's not as if we need more humans, but I think that this shows a direct link.

  12. Thanks Dionysus thanked for this post
  13. #130
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Well, as I recall, that's quite different than the reasons you mentioned earlier. That is, earlier you seemed to be suggesting that allowing same-sex marriage erodes society in such a way that leads to less marriage, more divorce, more promiscuity, and more single-parenting. Now you're saying that, for you, it wouldn't have been that per se, but rather, you and your wife would have simply chosen not to be married. Recall also that, in the earlier hypothetical you described with your wife, you were describing something like a common-law relationship, where you lived together, were faithful and raised children, but simply didn't get married.

    So, I guess there's three things, here:

    1. You haven't really shown a connection between same-sex marriage and the sort of consequences you seemed to be talking about at first and...
    I believe I did, granted not in the last post, but in my postings dealing with that specific point.. which our exchange has been pretty extensive at this point.

    I argued that Same sex marriage would bring about the divorce of the religious idea from the legal one. While some have argued that it occurred 30 years ago legally, this is the legal event that makes it so in the minds of the people.
    Using myself as an example, I was married after that time frame, and it was an understood to myself that they were equivalences. So while it may be well argued that legally it occurred 30 years ago, right now the fight you are seeing is evidence that a lot of people didn't think so.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    2. ...even if you could show that what you're talking about now could come to pass, in terms of equal application of rights, what you're describing is more or less the equivalent of someone refusing to go to church for ruling racial segregation unconstitutional. I don't see how someone essentially throwing a fit over a certain kind of people exercising their equal rights means that those people should not have those rights.
    I actually find that to be an offensive portrait of my argument. Because my argument is that Marriage = X definition under which gays are specifically not included.
    It is for the religious consequences, not the objection to gays obtaining rights, under which my objection rests. You know or should know that I am a proponent of gays getting their rights protected in a manner equal to straits.

    So I reject the validity of your objection as an accurate reflection of my position.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    3. Why on earth would how the state views a thing cause your religious views regarding that thing to change, especially when you believe that marriage is first and foremost a religious institution? If SCOTUS rule that the definition of religion was "Islam", would that cause you to abandon Christianity? How does a secular position on a thing undermine your religious beliefs about that thing?
    It is a simple matter of definitions. This change represents a change to an extent which it is no longer applicable to the religious term for which it shares a name.
    For the sake of clarity I would refrain from using it to describe myself.

    So if being called a "christian" some how became equated with the idea of worshiping Satan and all the "pagan" practices that go with it.
    Then I would no longer Identify myself as a "christian".

    My religious views are not changing, I am seeking to clearly communicate what they are. I would think that the side (not you specifically) who has argued to the extreme that words can mean whatever people like
    and that people can apply whatever words they like to themselves in whatever manner they feel, that such a side would not begrudge ME the same opportunity to distinguish myself and my religious beliefs from practices that are not in line with my views, by using words as I wish. .. and you know.. not call it names like pouting or throwing a fit and what not.

    Any name calling you can ascribe to that act... well
    I'm rubber and your glue anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you...
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  14. #131
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I believe I did, granted not in the last post, but in my postings dealing with that specific point.. which our exchange has been pretty extensive at this point.

    I argued that Same sex marriage would bring about the divorce of the religious idea from the legal one. While some have argued that it occurred 30 years ago legally, this is the legal event that makes it so in the minds of the people.

    Using myself as an example, I was married after that time frame, and it was an understood to myself that they were equivalences. So while it may be well argued that legally it occurred 30 years ago, right now the fight you are seeing is evidence that a lot of people didn't think so.
    Well, so what if they don’t think so?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I actually find that to be an offensive portrait of my argument. Because my argument is that Marriage = X definition under which gays are specifically not included.
    It is for the religious consequences, not the objection to gays obtaining rights, under which my objection rests. You know or should know that I am a proponent of gays getting their rights protected in a manner equal to straits.

    So I reject the validity of your objection as an accurate reflection of my position.
    You should know that the intent certainly isn’t to cause offense; it’s only to provide an accurate comparison. I’m not drawing the comparison to be provocative. But, offense or no, the comparison is fair and accurate from every angle I can view it from.

    Equal rights mean that all people can exercise them. SCOTUS recognizes marriage as a fundamental right. Same-sex marriage opponents are arguing that marriage should only be exercisable by certain kinds of people – namely straight couples. This is fundamentally no different than saying that ‘only certain kinds of people can be married – namely same-race couples’ or ‘only certain kinds of people can own property – namely men’ or ‘only certain kinds of people have rights of individual sovereignty – namely white men’ or ‘only certain kinds of people can vote – namely men.’

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is a simple matter of definitions. This change represents a change to an extent which it is no longer applicable to the religious term for which it shares a name.
    For the sake of clarity I would refrain from using it to describe myself.
    Well, again, so what? If marriage is a fundamental right (and SCOTUS recognizes it as such), why should it be that only certain kinds people should not have access to fundamental rights on the basis of other kinds of people not liking it?

    It’s a bit like arguing that you’ll surrender your rights to free speech if certain kinds of people are allowed to exercise it, or if certain kinds of speech are allowed.

    Consider when SCOTUS said that campaign contributions are a certain kind of speech. Now, I personally think that stretches the definition of “speech” to a nonsensical extreme, but that doesn’t change how I view speech as it relates to me and my rights. Moreover, I’m certainly not going to forgo exercising my right to free speech because SCOTUS declared ‘speech’ to be something I don’t like.

    ---------- Post added at 05:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Excuse the interjection but it does appear that there are gay men who would marry and have children because they are not given the option either by their religion or social norms. Michelle Bachman's not-gay husband on the surface appears to be one and there are plenty of examples of Republican anti-gay politicians who turn out to be gay.

    We won't really know for a long time the effects of freely allowing gay men to live their natural lives without procreating but it's certainly not going to be zero. I for one, don't really care - it's not as if we need more humans, but I think that this shows a direct link.
    Thanks for that input. You make a valid point.

    The thing to bear in mind is that MT is arguing that marriage should be denied to same sex couples because it will in fact lead to less marriage, more divorce, more promiscuity, and more single parenting.

    Also (and I had to clarify this for MT as well), I'm not saying (nor is anyone else) that there will be NO consequences. Of course there will be consequences. That's the point. There are known consequences, and unknown ones. MT's lives in the latter space, which is why I'm asking him to show a connection. Consider:

    Going back to consequences we actually can say that same-sex marriage will in fact lead to, everyone knows to a certainty that allowing same-sex marriage will cause more same-sex people to get married; that's a known and understood consequence of allowing same-sex couples to be married. Yes, there's bound to be other peripheral consequences but we can only speculate on what that may or may not be (and that’s the space that MT’s consequences live in, which is why I’m asking him to show a clear connection).

    Last, consider two things: First, in our world of “traditional” marriage, we already have divorce, promiscuity and single parenting. That is, these things are prevalent in our current state of affairs where “traditional” marriage is the only kind of marriage allowed.

    Second, marriage is typically understood to be a life-long commitment where the couple wants to be exclusive to one another, where theyaren’t promiscuous, where they don’t get divorced and where they aren’t single-parenting.

    Given these two things, when I say “I don’t see a connection”, I mean that I don’t understand how allowing more people who want to get married to get married will lead to more of the things that “traditional” marriage is generally understood by its very nature to mitigate.

  15. #132
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    There are known consequences, and unknown ones. MT's lives in the latter space, which is why I'm asking him to show a connection.

    I think ultimately MT has already defeated himself when he said:

    It is for the religious consequences, not the objection to gays obtaining rights, under which my objection rests.
    Firstly, of course, it is therefore unconstitutional to pass laws based on a particular religion. Secondly, and why no anti-gay marriage is persuasive, is that only one particular subset of Christians are arguing this point - any social consequences are wholly based on a personal belief system: who cares about "religious consequences" (whatever they really are) if you're not a believer in the right-wing political interpretation of Christianity?

    The reticence you see about specific consequences is due to the fact that these "religious consequences" are going to be entirely unpersuasive - Sodom and Gomorrah, fiery pits of hell and all that. It's been a several day evasion but we finally got here - this is purely about religion and personal belief.

    MT: Am I right?

    Second, marriage is typically understood to be a life-long commitment where the couple wants to be exclusive to one another, where theyaren’t promiscuous, where they don’t get divorced and where they aren’t single-parenting.
    Yes and in another debate with another Christian I pointed out that even Eve was created as a partner NOT for procreation - that only came after The Fall; that line of argumentation isn't even religious.

    Given these two things, when I say “I don’t see a connection”, I mean that I don’t understand how allowing more people who want to get married to get married will lead to more of the things that “traditional” marriage is generally understood by its very nature to mitigate.
    Right, you don't see the connection because you are not religious. MT is not against the practical rights of gays but what he sees as a religious term used in a secular context (even though it already has been for centuries).

    To your specific question though, it has already been answered: fewer gay Christians marrying will produce fewer Christian families and therefore is an attack on the institution of Christianity itself. Not only has there already been a decline in youth membership, now there are going to be even fewer youths to begin with. There will certainly be MORE divorce from fathers who can now have lots of free gay sex (because that's what gay people do all the time) without the "traditional" fear of a pregnancy. The long term consequence is that there will be less suppression of gay youths, being gay will be socially acceptable and religious conservatives will take a huge black eye for all history; thought of much in the same way as slave owners today. Ultimately, it is another nail in the coffin for conservative thought, especially those based on religion and even more so for those who have politicized religion.

    So I don't think this is really so much a fight against gays so much as for self preservation. It is important to point out though that Christianity as a religion is not being attack. It must be continually pointed out that this is a political interpretation of religion at play and that is what is at stake.

    I think this is the "connection" you seek.

  16. #133
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Right, you don't see the connection because you are not religious. MT is not against the practical rights of gays but what he sees as a religious term used in a secular context (even though it already has been for centuries).

    To your specific question though, it has already been answered: fewer gay Christians marrying will produce fewer Christian families and therefore is an attack on the institution of Christianity itself. Not only has there already been a decline in youth membership, now there are going to be even fewer youths to begin with. There will certainly be MORE divorce from fathers who can now have lots of free gay sex (because that's what gay people do all the time) without the "traditional" fear of a pregnancy. The long term consequence is that there will be less suppression of gay youths, being gay will be socially acceptable and religious conservatives will take a huge black eye for all history; thought of much in the same way as slave owners today. Ultimately, it is another nail in the coffin for conservative thought, especially those based on religion and even more so for those who have politicized religion.

    So I don't think this is really so much a fight against gays so much as for self preservation. It is important to point out though that Christianity as a religion is not being attack. It must be continually pointed out that this is a political interpretation of religion at play and that is what is at stake.

    I think this is the "connection" you seek.
    Yeah, I guess that, for me, there are simply too many assumptions in it for me to take it seriously, especially in the context in which MT is placing it. In his view, it seems like allowing same-sex marriage victimizes Christians to such an extent that they'll abandon their faith and plunge the entire country into a state of godless anarchy. Sure, there will be changes, but that? That's nonsense.

    Or, if not that, then he feels that many Christians will be in a huff and take their marbles and go somewhere else. To this, I say "so what?" There's no reason to deny equal rights to a certain type of person because another type of person doesn't want them to have it.
    Last edited by Dionysus; May 6th, 2015 at 08:13 AM. Reason: Typos/clarifications

  17. #134
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,676
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I argued that Same sex marriage would bring about the divorce of the religious idea from the legal one. While some have argued that it occurred 30 years ago legally, this is the legal event that makes it so in the minds of the people.
    I disagree. As I've repeatedly said, and you have never rebutted, SOCIETY accepts opposite-sex atheist marriages as "marriages" and likewise has no problem with the government considering those things to be marriages. I really doubt that a significant portion of the population is under the illusion that the government considers all marriages to be Christian marriages.

    And again I ask, like I did in my previous post that you did not respond to, do you accept this notion or do you challenge it? Either answer is fine, but if it is to be challenged, then challenge it with an argument showing how it's wrong.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Using myself as an example, I was married after that time frame, and it was an understood to myself that they were equivalences. So while it may be well argued that legally it occurred 30 years ago, right now the fight you are seeing is evidence that a lot of people didn't think so.
    The fight you are seeing now is over gay marriage, not non-religious marriage. The latter fight was settled 30+ years ago, legally and societally.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I actually find that to be an offensive portrait of my argument. Because my argument is that Marriage = X definition under which gays are specifically not included.
    It is for the religious consequences, not the objection to gays obtaining rights, under which my objection rests.
    But then you must acknowledge that that has no legal relevance to whether the government shall treat gay unions the same as straight unions (separation of church and state).

    Your argument seems to be focused on the government using the term "marriage" in a context that you disagree with - that "marriage" is an inherently religious word and therefore the government should not be adopting an irreligious definition of the word. Of course I've argued that the word is no longer primarily a religious word and even supported that with the dictionary.

    But even if I were to agree with you that "marriage" is inherently religious and it's inherently wrong to apply the term to the non-religioius unions, it does not equate an argument against gay marriage. For two reasons.

    1. Gays can have religious ceremonies and therefore qualify for the definition of religious marriage.
    2. If your argument is accepted, the obvious remedy is not to exclusively bar gays from government-recognized marriage but to bar EVERYONE from government-recognized marriage since the government has no business officially recognizing a religious ceremony. In other words, the government should grant everyone who qualifies "civil unions" and leave marriage up to the churches. So a couple can have a marriage and/or a civil union.

    But either way, if we accept your argument and likewise adhere to the constitution, we cannot have the state continue to recognize heterosexuals marriages and refuse to recognize gay marriage. It can recognize both or neither but it can't recognize just one of them.

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

    And on another issue - and this is more for clarification than to offer an argument.

    You forwarded that Christian marriage is what influenced you to marry as support that Christian marriage increases marriage.

    So I assume the scenario was something like you fell in love with a woman and wanted to live with her. You had the option of just "living in sin" and may have done that but your faith influenced you to marry her instead and therefore forward yourself as an example of a couple who married because of their Christian faith. Is that roughly accurate?
    Last edited by mican333; May 6th, 2015 at 08:22 AM.

  18. #135
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Yeah, I guess that, for me, there are simply too many assumptions in it for me to take it seriously, especially in the context in which MT is placing it. In his view, it seems like allowing same-sex marriage victimizes Christians to such an extent that they'll abandon their faith and plunge the entire country into a state of godless anarchy. Sure, there will be changes, but that? That's nonsense.
    Given the collective sigh and eye rolling whenever Conservative Christians make their pronouncements of doom and gloom, I think it is not at all nonsense. It will certainly make "Christians" (aka right-wing conservative Christians) abandon their outmoded ideas and to them, the country is already in anarchy with all the fornication and abortion going on. The trajectory towards fundamentalist religious thinking to moderates is towards godlessness - if God is wrong about The Gay, what else is he wrong about?

    I think you need to look at it from their perspective rather than trying to see their proclamations with from your own. Of course, having no real solid examples doesn't help matters so I think MT should be challenged directly as to what specific bad things are going to happen; and indeed, to your earlier point, whether they are really bad at all. For my part, I agree it is bad; but it's bad only for conservative Christians seeing their influence wane.


    Or, if not that, then he feels that many Christians will be in a huff and take their marbles and go somewhere else. To this, I say "so what?" There's no reason to deny equal rights to a certain type of person because another type of person doesn't want them to have it.
    Isn't religion like that though? It's the dog in the manger stopping people from having harmless consensual fun that has zero impact on one's own life. But then again I have to emphasize that not all religions are like this - in America we are transitioning away from this kind of strict thinking - and I totally agree with your point about "so what?" It would be better that they take the ball away and not interfere with other people's lives.

  19. #136
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Yeah, I guess that, for me, there are simply too many assumptions in it for me to take it seriously, especially in the context in which MT is placing it. In his view, it seems like allowing same-sex marriage victimizes Christians to such an extent that they'll abandon their faith and plunge the entire country into a state of godless anarchy. Sure, there will be changes, but that? That's nonsense.
    Here's the best version of that argument that I can think of:

    By endorsing same-sex marriage, our society's concepts of marriage and its purposes will change. While currently there are instances of non-reproductive marriages, they are in the distinct minority. Legalizing same-sex marriage will change that, and will weaken our society's concept of marriage, procreation, and child rearing. We don't want to become like Japan and many European countries that have non-sustaining birthrates, and the traditional concept of marriage provides for a healthy family environment for child rearing and procreation (fewer abandoned spouses and children, financial and emotional stability, etc.). By weakening or diluting the message that traditional marriage sends to each generation, we end up with less of a desire to have procreative families with healthy environments for child-rearing. If we want our society to exist for another hundred generations, we need to provide strong foundations for each generation to create and provide for the next. Same-sex marriage chips away at that foundation by changing the prevailing marriage paradigm away from the traditional concept of marriage.

    I don't find it convincing, but I think it gets rid of the "Christians are the victims here!" issues.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  20. Thanks Dionysus thanked for this post
  21. #137
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I think you need to look at it from their perspective rather than trying to see their proclamations with from your own. Of course, having no real solid examples doesn't help matters so I think MT should be challenged directly as to what specific bad things are going to happen; and indeed, to your earlier point, whether they are really bad at all. For my part, I agree it is bad; but it's bad only for conservative Christians seeing their influence wane.
    Well, I think you might misunderstand the perspective I'm viewing it from. I am 44 years old. I got "saved" when I was 9 and at 14 I was one of the youth pastors for our church. Roughly the first half of my life was lived as a Christian in fundamentalist churches, with ambitions to become a preacher throughout my teens.

    So I think I can say with some confidence that I understand his perspective quite well.

    When talking about negative consequences earlier in the thread that he said "The single mom lifestyle is pretty destructive, and the side effects to society of the wild oats sowing male is really bad (see negative effects on black community for both as evidence)." His position was that this is the sort of thing same-sex marriage leads to i.e. women being inseminated and being left to raise children by wandering, horny sperm donors in an endless cycle of random, godless breeding. But when I asked how knowing same-sex marriage exists would lead to that, he said that, if he’d had such knowledge, he’d still be a father living with his wife, but they wouldn’t be married.

    Now, in terms of sin, I understand that living together and having children unmarried means you’re “living in sin”. But in terms of overall negative effects on society, I think the former scenario is decidedly different than the latter in which he described for himself. In other words, he said that same-sex marriage leads to anarchy throughout the country (anarchy being what I described in the first half above), but when I asked how it was affect him personally, he described living in a common-law situation.

    So, again, we have some degree of the former now with opposite-sex marriage. So why should we think that allowing more people that want to get married to be married leads to the former? I can see the latter for those who are simply throwing a fit, but I can’t see any reason to think the latter would be increased by allowing more people to engage in a practice that typically mitigates those very things.

  22. #138
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    I don't find it convincing, but I think it gets rid of the "Christians are the victims here!" issues.
    MT, the only person here opposing gay marriage, specifically said that his only argument here is religious. That's not saying all Christians are victims because if anything, it is only right-wing conservative (fundamentalist) Christians that are having issues. Christianity will survive but some Christians will find their role weakened.

    ---------- Post added at 09:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    So I think I can say with some confidence that I understand his perspective quite well.
    Agreed. I missed out on that side of life - I've always been an atheist.

    When talking about negative consequences earlier in the thread that he said "The single mom lifestyle is pretty destructive, and the side effects to society of the wild oats sowing male is really bad (see negative effects on black community for both as evidence)." His position was that this is the sort of thing same-sex marriage leads to i.e. women being inseminated and being left to raise children by wandering, horny sperm donors in an endless cycle of random, godless breeding. But when I asked how knowing same-sex marriage exists would lead to that, he said that, if he’d had such knowledge, he’d still be a father living with his wife, but they wouldn’t be married.
    Perhaps the implication is that rather than marrying his wife he wants to leave himself the option of gay marrying someone else in the future? That's confusing. There are plenty of reasons to marry that are financial and legal with or without gay marriage. What an odd position to hold.

    Now, in terms of sin, I understand that living together and having children unmarried means you’re “living in sin”. But in terms of overall negative effects on society, I think the former scenario is decidedly different than the latter in which he described for himself. In other words, he said that same-sex marriage leads to anarchy throughout the country (anarchy being what I described in the first half above), but when I asked how it was affect him personally, he described living in a common-law situation.
    Ah. So he would still have a legal marriage and get all the legal benefits but not actually go through with a religious marriage even though gay people wouldn't have a religious ceremony anyway? How does gay marriage prevent him from practicing his own religion!?

    So, again, we have some degree of the former now with opposite-sex marriage. So why should we think that allowing more people that want to get married to be married leads to the former? I can see the latter for those who are simply throwing a fit, but I can’t see any reason to think the latter would be increased by allowing more people to engage in a practice that typically mitigates those very things.
    Yeah, I agree with you. Something doesn't make sense here and I can't quite put my finger on it. If we're talking about legal marriages (what MT calls a civil union) then we will see a net increase of marriages. Not marrying, especially when one has children, doesn't make sense and even barren couples have tax benefits. Not participating in a religious marriage makes even less sense since no one is changing how religions work.

    Sigh, I'll leave you to unravel this but it's hard to find any real victims here.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; May 6th, 2015 at 10:22 AM.

  23. Likes Dionysus liked this post
  24. #139
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    So I'm reading your responses to each other guys.. and I don't think a single one of you has accurately understood my argument. I mean some of the implications you are drawing is the exact opposite of what is actually argued, and some of your conclusions are being treated as some kind of objection to my argument.. when it is the purpose of my actual argument.

    No, i don't think you guys have gotten it. I did find the JJ post most humorous supposing that maybe i wanted to save myself for gay marriage, that was a hoot.
    Still, I am not blaming you guys for that lack of getting it, most of you are reasonable people so I count it as my failure to communicate or to the kind of fog of discussion where several issues are raised and answers are mis applied (i did that myself several times). I have slept several times between these discussions, so maybe I forgot something.
    I'll refrain from answering further unless and until I can summarize my views that I feel I have presented and clarify to what they are referring specifically.
    Barring that, you can consider my position withdrawn, or conceded or whatever you like.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  25. Thanks Dionysus thanked for this post
  26. #140
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    I did find the JJ post most humorous supposing that maybe i wanted to save myself for gay marriage, that was a hoot.
    It wasn't a serious suggestion but I am thinking that a gay man would do exactly as you suggest.

    Still, I am not blaming you guys for that lack of getting it, most of you are reasonable people so I count it as my failure to communicate or to the kind of fog of discussion where several issues are raised and answers are mis applied (i did that myself several times). I have slept several times between these discussions, so maybe I forgot something.
    I'll refrain from answering further unless and until I can summarize my views that I feel I have presented and clarify to what they are referring specifically.
    Barring that, you can consider my position withdrawn, or conceded or whatever you like.
    I really don't see why this is so difficult to be honest. It basically boils down to:

    1. You believe that your personal religious beliefs should be applied to people outside your specific sub-set of Christianity despite vehement opposition from your fellow Christians, because ....
    2. You believe that an otherwise wholly heterosexual man would not marry a wholly heterosexual woman in a religious marriage ceremony due to gays being able to marry, because ...

    I don't think anyone is challenging your religious views per se but the consequences you have forwarded just don't seem realistic. And it really isn't just you, I don't think there has ever been a solid defense in the real world either. Even this OP if anything supports that polygamy should also be allowed so it's all very baffling.

 

 
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 7th, 2005, 02:04 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
  •