Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 221
  1. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Therein lies the rub. According to your position, if it's a civil right, the government must provide it. Where's my check?
    lol. the government doesn't pay Bill Gates. It's the other way around.
    Then it would seem that one should be more careful in ascribing one.

    Where have I said any right should be denied?
    Oh! I'm sorry! I was under the impression that you were for denying gays full access to, e.g., the right to get legal marriage.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  2. wjclint's Avatar
    Posts
    40 Posts
    Global Posts
    41 Global Posts
    #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Keep marriage as it is, and since you are concerned about the benefits, the redefine "partners" to include the benefits of marriage.

    As for those other things not being related, yes they are. Get the Anti-American Civil Liberties Union involved and the ultimate result may very well be: no end in sight.
    The issues are not related and it boggles my mind as to why people always bring up polygamy, incest, child marriage, etc. when talking about the gay marriage issue and don't see how they have thrown basic logic and reason out the window.

    The problem with the denial of marriage rights to gay couples is that marriage rights are granted to other people. In other words what we as a nation (most of the states anyway) are doing is giving a right to some and denying it to others - hence the discrimination problem.

    Our laws do not deny the right to enter into bigamous relationships to some and grant it to others. Our laws do not deny the right to inter into incestuous relationships to some and grant it to others. We don't allow one group of people in our nation to marry 10 year olds and prohibit another group. In other words our polygamy, incest, and age of consent laws do not allow a right to one group and deny it to another - those laws simply say you can't do it regardless of whether you are gay, straight, or other.

    What we are doing with our current marriage laws is to allow some the right to marry but specifically deny it to others based on their sexual orientation. Trying to tie that to polygamy, incest, and child marriage means you either don't understand the issue, are purposefully trying to set up some sort of straw man argument, or just don't even know there is no connection between the two issues.
    Phone History: VisorPhone --> Treo180 --> Treo650--> Treo700p--> PalmCentro --> HTCTouchDiamond (2weeks) --> PalmCentro --> Palm Pre
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by wjclint View Post
    The issues are not related and it boggles my mind as to why people always bring up polygamy, incest, child marriage, etc. when talking about the gay marriage issue and don't see how they have thrown basic logic and reason out the window.

    The problem with the denial of marriage rights to gay couples is that marriage rights are granted to other people. In other words what we as a nation (most of the states anyway) are doing is giving a right to some and denying it to others - hence the discrimination problem.

    Our laws do not deny the right to enter into bigamous relationships to some and grant it to others. Our laws do not deny the right to inter into incestuous relationships to some and grant it to others. We don't allow one group of people in our nation to marry 10 year olds and prohibit another group. In other words our polygamy, incest, and age of consent laws do not allow a right to one group and deny it to another - those laws simply say you can't do it regardless of whether you are gay, straight, or other.

    What we are doing with our current marriage laws is to allow some the right to marry but specifically deny it to others based on their sexual orientation. Trying to tie that to polygamy, incest, and child marriage means you either don't understand the issue, are purposefully trying to set up some sort of straw man argument, or just don't even know there is no connection between the two issues.
    Wow. Well done.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    lol. the government doesn't pay Bill Gates. It's the other way around.
    Then 'economic equality' would not seem to be a civil right without condition.
    Oh! I'm sorry! I was under the impression that you were for denying gays full access to, e.g., the right to get legal marriage.
    No. I've summed it up several times. It's obviously moot.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by wjclint View Post
    The issues are not related and it boggles my mind as to why people always bring up polygamy, incest, child marriage, etc. when talking about the gay marriage issue and don't see how they have thrown basic logic and reason out the window.
    As I said, polygamy does relate. The others not so much. When one considers government endorsement of 'marriage' as purely an issue of simplifying succession, logic and reason are still within the building. Throwing logic and reason out of the window happens when one creates the purely emotional appeal of 'if those two straight people can get married, why can't those two gay people?'
    The problem with the denial of marriage rights to gay couples is that marriage rights are granted to other people. In other words what we as a nation (most of the states anyway) are doing is giving a right to some and denying it to others - hence the discrimination problem.
    This is why I raised the question of why the state acknowledges it. It is central to the discrimination argument. Trying to ignore or deny that is a straw man in and of itself.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  6. #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    But the equity has _everything_ to do with the reason. If we assume that the government recognizes marriage based simply on the fact that two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, it creates a completely different equity than if we assume that the government recognizes marriage to clearly delineate property ownership and inheritance on familial terms and to 'legitimize' procreation.
    Would either of those reasons allow for gay couples to be disallowed from taking part? I guess I'm trying to understand why it would make a difference.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  7. wjclint's Avatar
    Posts
    40 Posts
    Global Posts
    41 Global Posts
    #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    As I said, polygamy does relate. The others not so much. When one considers government endorsement of 'marriage' as purely an issue of simplifying succession, logic and reason are still within the building. Throwing logic and reason out of the window happens when one creates the purely emotional appeal of 'if those two straight people can get married, why can't those two gay people?'

    This is why I raised the question of why the state acknowledges it. It is central to the discrimination argument. Trying to ignore or deny that is a straw man in and of itself.
    Your logic is flawed. If we passed a law allowing polygamy for one group of society and denying it to some other group then it would relate. Currently the only relation is that both idea are about marriage but only one is about discrimination.

    Though you stumble when you try to make the polygamy analogy you seem to get back on track (at least to the extent of making a cogent argument) when you state there is a relationship to whether discrimination is allowed by laws, or not, and the reason for the underlying discrimination. If you are not in a protected class then you can be discriminated against if there is a rational relationship to a legitimate public interest. This is where the real argument lies. If you are a protected class then there must be more than just a rational basis, but the rational basis test is always going to be the baseline - if you can't meet that test you are never going to meet any test once sexual orientation becomes a protected class based on Federal Law.

    Is it rational to say that we should grant heterosexuals certain rights and deny them to homosexuals based on the fact that heterosexuals can procreate and that is a legitimate public interest? Well I couldn't even type that with a straight face so I don't think it meets the rational basis test (that is actually how you frame the rational basis test - if you can't keep a straight face while stating your argument then you have failed the rational basis test).
    Phone History: VisorPhone --> Treo180 --> Treo650--> Treo700p--> PalmCentro --> HTCTouchDiamond (2weeks) --> PalmCentro --> Palm Pre
  8. #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Would either of those reasons allow for gay couples to be disallowed from taking part? I guess I'm trying to understand why it would make a difference.
    That is where I am at, as well.

    As far as I can tell, BOTH of those reasons are legitimate reasons for gays wanting marriage rights and they are BOTH benefits that heterosexual couples get through marriage.

    What's your point, Toby? By the way, thanks for the debate. I appreciate a good discussion. :-)
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by wjclint View Post
    (that is actually how you frame the rational basis test - if you can't keep a straight face while stating your argument then you have failed the rational basis test).
    Hey! Are you implying that framing an argument with a gay face while stating your argument will fail?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10. wjclint's Avatar
    Posts
    40 Posts
    Global Posts
    41 Global Posts
    #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Hey! Are you implying that framing an argument with a gay face while stating your argument will fail?
    Wow - I really need to work on recognizing double meanings when I speak and type - I completely missed that.
    Phone History: VisorPhone --> Treo180 --> Treo650--> Treo700p--> PalmCentro --> HTCTouchDiamond (2weeks) --> PalmCentro --> Palm Pre
  11. #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by wjclint View Post
    Your logic is flawed.
    No, I'm just not starting with the same assumptions.
    Though you stumble when you try to make the polygamy analogy you seem to get back on track (at least to the extent of making a cogent argument) when you state there is a relationship to whether discrimination is allowed by laws, or not, and the reason for the underlying discrimination.
    I think you may be missing the analogy and assuming I'm arguing something I'm not.
    Is it rational to say that we should grant heterosexuals certain rights and deny them to homosexuals based on the fact that heterosexuals can procreate and that is a legitimate public interest?
    Now we're getting closer, except I'm not saying it is de facto a legitimate public interest, nor that certain rights should or shouldn't be granted (ignoring for a moment that I don't consider rights capable of being granted under the philosophical pinnings of the foundation of the US system) or denied.
    Well I couldn't even type that with a straight face so I don't think it meets the rational basis test (that is actually how you frame the rational basis test - if you can't keep a straight face while stating your argument then you have failed the rational basis test).
    That's called a circular argument, which fails my rational basis test.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Would either of those reasons allow for gay couples to be disallowed from taking part? I guess I'm trying to understand why it would make a difference.
    Because if we operate under the assumption that the government recognizes marriage solely as an institution of love and companionship, then the civil rights argument that it is illegal discrimination holds _much_ more water. If we operate under the assumption that the government recognizes marriage for the purposes of simplifying succession, then it becomes more tenuous.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13. wjclint's Avatar
    Posts
    40 Posts
    Global Posts
    41 Global Posts
    #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Now we're getting closer, except I'm not saying it is de facto a legitimate public interest, nor that certain rights should or shouldn't be granted (ignoring for a moment that I don't consider rights capable of being granted under the philosophical pinnings of the foundation of the US system) or denied.
    So the discrimination is the government recognizing the benefits of the contract of marriage for certain identified individuals but denying those benefits to others based on their sexual orientation.

    The "legitimate public interests" that come to mind, some mentioned already and some not: promoting procreation, making inheritance easier, easing the consciences of people that are homophobic but just don't know it, granting tax incentives, creating new and beneficial forms of property ownership, recognizing and rewarding love and loyalty. . .

    Here is where I always have problems. When I try to argue that those "legitimate public interests" are rationally related to the discrimination that is being perpetuated I just can't do it without a "happy" face.
    Last edited by wjclint; 05/28/2009 at 04:21 PM.
    Phone History: VisorPhone --> Treo180 --> Treo650--> Treo700p--> PalmCentro --> HTCTouchDiamond (2weeks) --> PalmCentro --> Palm Pre
  14. #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by gksmithlcw View Post
    What's your point, Toby? By the way, thanks for the debate. I appreciate a good discussion. :-)
    I appreciate a good discussion as well. I don't have a final point per se. I find the meta-debate more interesting in most cases. My personal opinion hasn't really entered into it much so far. I'm more trying to understand the reasonings behind others' positions, and offer an alternate perspective. "To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and attempt to humbly grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all there is."
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15. #115  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Because if we operate under the assumption that the government recognizes marriage solely as an institution of love and companionship, then the civil rights argument that it is illegal discrimination holds _much_ more water. If we operate under the assumption that the government recognizes marriage for the purposes of simplifying succession, then it becomes more tenuous.
    How so? Do homosexuals not need to worry about succession? I feel that your logic is flawed, here.
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  16. #116  
    Because if we operate under the assumption that the government recognizes marriage solely as an institution of love and companionship, then the civil rights argument that it is illegal discrimination holds _much_ more water. If we operate under the assumption that the government recognizes marriage for the purposes of simplifying succession, then it becomes more tenuous.
    How so? Do homosexuals not need to worry about succession?
    I wonder the same, particularly since gay couples can and do adopt children, so the issue of succession, health care, and survivor guardianship rights apply to both straights and gays.
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/28/2009 at 05:47 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  17. #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by gksmithlcw View Post
    How so? Do homosexuals not need to worry about succession?
    In the sense of a biological union, no, it's not the same issue. It's more complicated. It would be the same legal issue as a step child.
    I feel that your logic is flawed, here.
    That's the problem. You're 'feeling' instead of 'thinking'.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I wonder the same, particularly since gay couples can and do adopt children, so the issue of succession, health care, and survivor guardianship rights apply to both straights and gays.
    It would seem so. And do those not become more complicated in a non-traditional 'marriage'?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  19. #119  
    Marriage isn't specified in the Constitution. We're all aware of that, correct? Nor are civil unions.

    Call me a stickler.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  20. #120  
    Sorry...missed this earlier...

    Quote Originally Posted by wjclint View Post
    So the discrimination is the government recognizing the benefits of the contract of marriage for certain identified individuals but denying those benefits to others based on their sexual orientation.
    I wouldn't put it that way. I'm considering it an issue of laziness. The traditional view of marriage makes certain things easier. When things don't fit into that view, it makes things more involved.
    The "legitimate public interests" that come to mind, some mentioned already and some not: promoting procreation, making inheritance easier, easing the consciences of people that are homophobic but just don't know it, granting tax incentives, creating new and beneficial forms of property ownership, recognizing and rewarding love and loyalty. . .
    Note that those are your proposed 'legitimate public interests' (or at least the ones you chose to highlight). Making inheritance easier would probably be the only one that I've mentioned. Rewarding love and loyalty, or easing homophobic consciences would be relatively low on my priority list of public interests (and by relatively low, I mean beneath consideration ).
    Here is where I always have problems. When I try to argue that those "legitimate public interests" are rationally related to the discrimination that is being perpetuated I just can't do it without a "happy" face.
    Perhaps that's my INTPness showing. I'm not considering 'happy' or 'sad' when I discuss such things.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions