This comment just had to be brought to the front page to show exactly what is behind the movement to neuter marriage. Sean, aka Royal Oaker, a recent and highly repetitive advocate for neutering marriage shows exactly what the real purpose behind neutering marriage is.
[See inside...]
Honestly? Marriage can’t be “harmed” at all. If people don’t want to get married, what difference does it make?
Ask any community where marriage rates are low and illegitimacy rates are high.
If they want to get married and divorced several times in their lifetimes, what difference does it make?
Ask the children of those divorces.
If marriage has worth, then it’s just in the mind of the people who want to get married what that worth is. Marriage is no more and no less than any given married couple wants it to be. [emphasis added]
No worth at all to society. No worth at all to children. Marriage, or at least the neutered version of it, has no worth at all outside the minds of those asking for a license. If that is truly the case, then for what reason is society involved, let alone should it stay involved?
For those who think Sean can't really have meant what he just said, he continues:
I don’t know if marriage is resilient or not resilient. It’s just a tradition, and if its time is past, then so be it. [emphasis added]
I have long said, scratch the surface of an advocate of neutering marriage and you will surely find someone who is just as happy if marriage is done away with. If anybody advocating for "same-sex marriage," doesn't agree with Sean's ultimate goal, below, they are free to say so in the comment trail.
I knew the marriage traditionalists would blow a fuse! The problem though, isn't whether same-sex couples get married or not, but rather, is marriage still an attractive option to couples. So long as marriage is optional, and not legally required of otherwise irresponsible procreators, then people can decide if it makes sense to them or not. Marriage was in decline long before the issue of same-sex marriage came up.
ReplyDeleteRampant divorce sends a signal that maybe one is better off not getting involved in a marriage scenario because it can be so costly and painful to get out of. But no one seems to want to "protect" marriage from the divorce disease. The handful of same-sex couples getting married is small potatoes to the millions of opposite-sex couples getting married and divorced.
Sean: But no one seems to want to "protect" marriage from the divorce disease.
ReplyDeleteAs if we needed more proof how out-of-touch Sean is with reality.
But no one seems to want to "protect" marriage from the divorce disease.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I've said I'd like to end no-fault divorce, but I take it that's not enough. Would Sean would like marriage supporters to say we should not allow divorce under any circumstances, even for such things as spousal abuse, adultery, sexual molestation of one's children, or even murder. Note, I'm not saying that Sean does not want to allow divorce for such things, but he thinks we shouldn't want to if we are sincere about wanting to protect marriage. Besides obviously protecting the abused spouse, part of the reason we do allow divorce under circumstances like that is to send the message that marriage is not about those kind of things.
“Of course, I've said I'd like to end no-fault divorce, but I take it that's not enough.”
ReplyDeleteNo, better to make divorce illegal, like same-sex marriage. If you can make an absolute argument against same-sex marriage, even where there are children being raised and who would benefit from having married parents, you should be consistent and outlaw pre-marital sex, adultery and divorce. You seem to insist on consistency from others. Practice it yourself.
Interesting, there appears to be no national movement to outlaw or even limit pre-marital sex, adultery or divorce. That’s curious, given how many marriage “defenders” are out there. How hard would it be to apply the same zeal to actually opposing the things that actually threaten marriage, and affect far greater numbers of people? Maybe there’s a clue in there: because so many people want to engage in pre-marital sex, adultery and divorce, one might appear a bit nutty to try to outlaw them. But gays are not only a small minority, they are often a disliked minority, so it’s much easier to assemble a posse and go after them. Very sad, but very revealing.
RO,
ReplyDeleteI can respond to that. I get a lot of 'you can't legislate morality', when I bring up marriage. Yet a minute or two later people make the argument that there should be a parenting test, before having a baby. I respond back, 'But that's legislating morality!'
Being as socially conservative as it may seem, I'll be the first to say sex is natural. We are all sexual beings, but we have to respect sex. We can't outlaw premarital sex, but we can do things as a community to encourage sexual behavior in a responsible manner while being being open what sex is for... making babies.
I dislike the abstinence view of sex education, as much as I dislike the comprehensive view. Being that sex is natural, we can't ignore the natural elements of fertility within sex and the obligations to those created from it. I deeper understanding is necessary, compared to passing out condoms or 'just say no'.
We want parents to love and care for their children, and be fully and 100% supportive to their needs. People can get selfish and self centered, while non parents can get away with such behavior, parents can't or else it is a call to the Department of Children & Families.
Marriage has to be voluntary, anything that has to do with coercion or abuse, defeats the purpose of marriage. Respect for the procreative nature within heterosexual is also a must, it isn't something biblical or unfairly unjust. It is what it is, it's an obviously and real gender difference, that a man can get a woman pregnant and not the other way around nor can one gender replace the other in is predicament.
“We want parents to love and care for their children”
ReplyDeleteIs there anyone who doesn’t want this?
“People can get selfish and self centered, while non parents can get away with such behavior, parents can't”
As a child of selfish parents, I assure you parents can be very selfish. Especially straight people, who often create children they didn’t plan for or don’t want. Not a good way to start off a relationship with a child! When you look at the all the unmarried couples raising children, the single parents raising children, all the children raise by non-biological parents because the biological can’t or won’t, it sure seems unfair to tag same-sex parents are somehow selfish, if that’s where you’re headed.
“Marriage has to be voluntary”
Is there anyone who doesn’t want this?
“Respect for the procreative nature within heterosexual is also a must”
Is there anyone who doesn’t want this?
I support same-sex marriage. I do not want marriage "done away with."
ReplyDeleteI don't see these as contradictory positions.
“Marriage has to be voluntary”
ReplyDeleteIs there anyone who doesn’t want this?
RO, you've been claiming we don't (or shouldn't, out of an absurd sense of consistency).
Who doesn't want marriage to be voluntary?
ReplyDeleteWho doesn't want marriage to be voluntary?
ReplyDeleteRead Renee's post; it is clear, I think, that she raised this point in response to your assertion which I just noted above.
It's too convoluted to understand at this point. Sorry, to much work for so little payoff.
ReplyDeleteI thought this quote from an Australian conservative politician was insightful:
ReplyDelete“Senator Arbib has major influence in the Right and his decision to break ranks will have an enormous impact on the debate within the ALP. “If I was the parent of a gay son or daughter I don’t know how I could tell them they didn’t have the same rights as I do,” he said yesterday.”
Maybe Australia will be the next marriage equality country!
Sean: > Sorry, to much work for so little payoff.
ReplyDeleteIt is sad that Sean considers understanding one another "so little payoff". Sure it is easier -- even safer -- to live in your own mind, but it is a cage when you treat it that way.
Arbib: > If I was the parent of a gay son or daughter I don’t know how I could tell them they didn’t have the same rights as I do
With a misunderstanding like that amongst the legislature Sean might get his wish.
Gays have the same opportunities as everyone else.
It's too convoluted to understand at this point.
ReplyDeleteAt first I thought it was a game, but now I'm coming to the conclusion that Sean/Oaker really doesn't understand how to apply logic in an argument. It's a lot like the kid who, when told he can't do something, keeps asking "Why!", and, when the parent tries to explain why, just continues pressing his "point" regardless. As many a parent or other adult has learned, explaining to such a child is to no avail.
Nope, I think I've shown myself rather competent at arguing in favor of marriage equality. I can't respond to false arguments, falsehoods, illogical retorts, etc., if that's what you meant.
ReplyDeleteIf you can't explain yourself clearly, whose fault is that? I'm not going to track back and forth between threads, in order to cobble together an argument that doesn't make sense anyway. Too much work for no pay off!
"It is sad that Sean considers understanding one another "so little payoff". Sure it is easier -- even safer -- to live in your own mind, but it is a cage when you treat it that way."
ReplyDeleteYou rarely make a sensible argument, and often are factually incorrect. That's why it's not worth a lot of effort to try to figure your convoluted ("go to this thread, then take a left, and go down this thread" etc.) cut and paste jobs.
"Gays have the same opportunities as everyone else."
You know that not to be true, and yet you merrily type it out. Gays do not have the right to marry the person they love, a right straights insist on for themselves, in 44 states. You can be against same-sex marriage but at least be honest about the plight of gay people.
Gays do not have the right to marry the person they love, a right straights insist on for themselves, in 44 states.
ReplyDeleteAnd neither straights nor gays have an absolute "right to marry the person they love" in any state:
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2010/04/some-are-more-equal-than-others.html
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2009/01/heartbreaking-marriage-elimination.html
Nope, I think I've shown myself rather competent at arguing in favor of marriage equality.
Ask a non-biased professor of logic.
The great thing about logic is that it is a set of rules which are verifiable as producing good results.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, if Sean's arguments were logical, he'd be able to demonstrate how they are logical. Instead he simply proclaims it -- hence his continued use of the logical fallacy of begging the question to cover up the fallacy of his use of begging the question.
He is like the used car salesman of his own poor arguments :) Never demonstrating their true value, just constantly giving a narrative as if it was that value.
"And neither straights nor gays have an absolute "right to marry the person they love" in any state"
ReplyDeleteWho's asking for an absolute right to marry? Straw man alert! In all 50 states, probably 99% of straight couples are eligible to marry. In 44 states, 0% of gay couples are eligible to marry. Do you understand the issue now? Good.
OnLawn, as one of the least logical supporters of marriage discrimination, you are the last person who should be lecturing on what logic is, and what is good logic. You're the one who insists that marriage is about procreation, yet when someone points out to you that many non-procreative couples are allowed to marry, you insist that principles don't have to have mathematical precision. When asked why mathematical imprecision isn't the reason to allow same-sex couples to marry, if it works for other non-procreative couples, you make up the notion of the "procreational unit," as if creating a child and not creating a child are irrelevant distinctions when the thing you say is essential about marriage is...procreation!
ReplyDeleteI do admit you are never at a loss for a crazy mixed up rationale in your efforts to keep marriage away from gay couples!
Who's asking for an absolute right to marry? Straw man alert! In all 50 states, probably 99% of straight couples are eligible to marry. In 44 states, 0% of gay couples are eligible to marry. Do you understand the issue now? Good.
ReplyDeleteOf course, you change the issue there. It's now about being eligible to marry, rather than being eligible to marry the person you love, by which I take it you mean "the person you love most, and are most sexually attracted to."
It's unlikely that all of that 99% (or whatever it really is) of straights are actually marrying the person they love most, or are most sexually attracted to. They may love someone who is already married, or they may love a first cousin, or an even closer relation, or someone underage, more than they love the one they are marrying.
It is also more than likely that many gays who marry the opposite sex do actually love the person they are marrying, even if they are more sexually attracted to their own gender.
Still, yes, I understand your argument. You are now saying that zero percent does not equal any percentage less than 100.
And your argument, better framed, is exactly as I stated in another thread:
1) gay individuals are legally equal to straights, therefore 2) gay individuals should have the same right to marry the individual of their choice. But gays cannot be satisfied with marriage as traditionally defined, as they cannot enjoy the type of sexual intimacy around which marriage is defined. Therefore the type of sexual activity which gays can be comfortable with must be treated as equal to the type which marriage has been built around, and hence marriage must be redefined accordingly, and all types of sexual acts must be regarded as equally consummative, or equal in their centrality to marriage.
Yes or no, are you denying that this is an accurate and precise summation of your argument? Or does marriage not have an "intimate and sexual nature", as you maintain it does?
In 44 states, 0% of gay couples are eligible to marry. Do you understand the issue now? Good.
ReplyDeleteLook for this to be one of my "what marriage neuterists know that isn't true" series.
But its been disproven here before by Op-Ed too. This lie, and how it is a lie, is old news.
OnLawn, as one of the least logical supporters of marriage discrimination, you are the last person who should be lecturing on what logic is, and what is good logic.
See how silly Sean gets when he's frustrated :)
Even with the invitation to show, with logic, any of his allegations he continues to simply beg the question. Its all he can do, apparently.
You're the one who insists that marriage is about procreation, yet when someone points out to you that many non-procreative couples are allowed to marry
No, Sean is the one who mistakes infertile couples as non-procreative types of couples. You can't hold them up as exceptions, when they aren't :)
But infertile couples are procreative couples who are impaired. A same-sex couple isn't even a procreative couple. That Sean doesn't know the difference between a disability and a choice, is his own fallacy to mend.
And we're still waiting for him to do so, rather than repeat the fallacy over and over again.
[...]you make up the notion of the "procreational unit,"
Human biology, and its form of sexual reproduction, is something Sean wants me to dismiss as make-believe. Sorry, but I'm not in favor of ignorance, and from where I'm standing it looks very confining.
"But infertile couples are procreative couples who are impaired"
ReplyDeleteNo, they're couples who can't procreate. And even if they're impaired, why can they get married if they can't procreate?
A "procreational unit" could just as easily be defined as a couple who CAN procreate.
I'm still waiting to hear why procreation creates an exclusion for same-sex couples to marry. I won't hold my breath!
“It's unlikely that all of that 99% (or whatever it really is) of straights are actually marrying the person they love most, or are most sexually attracted to.”
ReplyDeleteWell, they are still marrying the person of their choice, whatever that choice may be. Gay couples still don’t have the option to marry, in 44 states.
“It is also more than likely that many gays who marry the opposite sex do actually love the person they are marrying, even if they are more sexually attracted to their own gender.”
Well it’s possible but not very likely, nor very common. I’d like to hear from straight people who have married a gay person, and found out about it after the fact. And readers fall into that category, straight but married to a gay person?
“gay individuals are legally equal to straights, therefore 2) gay individuals should have the same right to marry the individual of their choice. But gays cannot be satisfied with marriage as traditionally defined, as they cannot enjoy the type of sexual intimacy around which marriage is defined. Therefore the type of sexual activity which gays can be comfortable with must be treated as equal to the type which marriage has been built around, and hence marriage must be redefined accordingly, and all types of sexual acts must be regarded as equally consummative, or equal in their centrality to marriage.”
I think this is overly theoretical or philosophical. Think of it this way: gay couples want to get married for the same reasons straight couples want to get married. Those reasons are love, commitment, legal protection of the relationship, create a more stable environment for the raising of children, mostly. Some people want to get married for money. Some people want to get married for power.
Well, they are still marrying the person of their choice, whatever that choice may be.
ReplyDeleteUsing a false analogy to create an apparent but false sense of an absolute lack of equivalence. The straight person, unable by law to marry his first choice, because that person is already married, or closely related, or underage, may of course then choose someone else who he is legally able to marry. Similarly, the gay person, unable to marry someone of their own gender, is free to also choose someone of the opposite gender who they can marry. In both situations, the person is marrying second choices, but marrying by choice nevertheless. (And yes, I've known gays married to lesbians who've had happy marriages).
Gay couples still don’t have the option to marry, in 44 states.
Wrong. Same-sex couples do not have marriages recognized in 44 states. Similarly, consanguineous couples, groups of more than two persons, and underage couples do not have the option to marry in any state, though in the first instance the cutoff point of legibility differs from state to state. Are not these couples or groups thus being "discriminated against"?
Do I acknowledge that gays are much less likely to be able to marry their first choice than are straights in general? Yes, though I will contend that in the case of gays the percentage is not zero, and in the case of straights the percentage is not 100. It is thus a quantitative difference. You are free to use the disparate impact argument while I will use the argument that there is a qualitative difference between same-sex and opposite-sex sex which relates to a central purpose of marriage, qualitative because while the likelihood of procreation in the one is not 100 percent, the likelihood in the other is zero percent, and thus extending the title of "marriage" to the other takes the perception of marriage so far from the core of procreation as to sever the link totally. And, as we've repeatedly said, several courts have agreed.
In any case, don't argue like zero percent is equal to anything under 100 percent in some situations, and not in others.
I’d like to hear from straight people who have married a gay person, and found out about it after the fact.
If you want to argue that it's better for a gay person to tell an opposite-sex spouse before the marriage, I'll agree on that. Nevertheless, yes, I know of couples who told each other up front, married anyway, and have continued to be happy.
I think this is overly theoretical or philosophical.
Exactly what I'd expect from someone who completely misunderstands a term of erroneous argument, and then refuses to acknowledge that he misunderstood it.
Think of it this way: gay couples want to get married for the same reasons straight couples want to get married. Those reasons are love, commitment, legal protection of the relationship, create a more stable environment for the raising of children, mostly.
So, I take it you are abandoning your statement that marriage has a "sexual nature"?
"create a more stable environment for the raising of children, mostly."
ReplyDeleteBut where do children come from? And do they inherently hold any individual rights to have a relationship with both maternal and paternal parents?
Children aren't plants. They're human beings in which we hold obligations to them, more then just food, water, and shelter.
Life has meaning, and it isn't to serve the wants of our parents or to be disposed of either.
I currently volunteer within my state's Department of Children of Families. While we all rejoice when a couple or individual takes on the needs of a foster child to guard and protect them, the child has suffered a true loss of a parent(s) due to drugs, neglect, abuse, incarceration, or willful abandonment.
Parental loss is a real loss, that even the best substitute is still that... a substitute and not the ideal for that child as an individual.
Nothings wrong with upholding the ideal based in nature, that everyone has a mom and dad. We live in an imperfect world, in which that may not happen. A child may be placed with other relatives, or even a qualified and willing adult who will raise them. Still it's NEVER about the adult(s) rights, rather it is about the rights of the child.
You would never tell a child, who lost his parents due to death that it OK and this living situation is better, we wouldn't do that to a child in foster care either. We grieve and recognize the fact the biological parents can't/won't be in that child's life, we don't celebrate the substitutes as superior as an ideal. The substitutes no matter how grateful, we are for the alternatives, are not a full replacement for what was loss.
“The straight person, unable by law to marry his first choice, because that person is already married, or closely related, or underage, may of course then choose someone else who he is legally able to marry. Similarly, the gay person, unable to marry someone of their own gender, is free to also choose someone of the opposite gender who they can marry.”
ReplyDeleteYou have revealed your essential child-like character with this one! You and OnLawn should spend some time together.
“the person is marrying second choices, but marrying by choice nevertheless. (And yes, I've known gays married to lesbians who've had happy marriages).”
I’m sure you have. Lots of them, right? It’s so common! Well, actually, second choice for a gay person is (wait for it!) another gay person!
I hope that someone you care about who is straight unknowingly marries a gay person, who with no other choice, had to marry an opposite-sex person in order to find long-term companionship and security. You appear to support mixed-orientation marriages, no matter who gets hurt, adult or child. Nice work!
I gotta ask, what is it with you people and this issue. You come up with the most absurd “solutions,” anything to keep gay couples away from marriage. Why? What is the big deal?
No, same-sex couples cannot get married in 44 states. I see you have joined the OnLawn school of “but they can get married in all 50 states!” even though they can’t. Is there a drug you people that insulates you from reality? I don’t understand why you would say they can when obviously all this brouhaha on the issue is about whether they can or should be able to. If they could get married in all 50 states, why does this website exist?
“Are not these couples or groups thus being "discriminated against"?”
Probably but it’s not unconstitutional to keep underage or closely related persons from marrying.
“If you want to argue that it's better for a gay person to tell an opposite-sex spouse before the marriage, I'll agree on that. Nevertheless, yes, I know of couples who told each other up front, married anyway, and have continued to be happy.”
Yes, I’m sure you’ve known lots of couples where one is an out gay person. It’s so common! And who doesn’t share that highly personal information with others?! Anyhow, that you’ve thought of a clever (for a child, maybe) instance where a gay person married a straight person and it was the choice of both, it doesn’t create an impediment to same-sex couples getting married. The vast majority of gay people would marry another gay person of the same sex if they had the option. Fact.
“Exactly what I'd expect from someone who completely misunderstands a term of erroneous argument, and then refuses to acknowledge that he misunderstood it.”
ReplyDeleteAnd exactly how someone with a weak or no argument at all would respond to someone not taking their bait. I know you really, really don’t want gay couples to marry but unless and until you come up with a reason why they shouldn’t, you’re going to lose the legal fight, as we’ve seen. You can fire judges, air television ads filled with lies, use scare tactics, associate yourself with religion (my personal favorite: who knew religionists were willing to make themselves look so bad on this issue!). You need a legal argument for why same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Good luck with that!
“But where do children come from? And do they inherently hold any individual rights to have a relationship with both maternal and paternal parents?”
Where do children come from? Seriously? Well, if a man and a woman have unprotected sex, that’s one way to get a baby: a married straight couple, a lesbian has sex with a friend or gets some sperm from a sperm bank, a gay man and his partner adopt two girls abandoned by their straight parents, these are all possible ways to have a baby!
Seeing how hundreds of thousands of children are being raised in single parent and same-sex couple households, quite legally in all 50 states, I guess kids don’t have the right to dual gender parents. Oh well. But many single parents and same-sex couple parents are happy to have the non-represented gender be a part of their child’s life. And often there is a family member who plays the role of non-represented gender influence, if the parents deem that influence to be important.
“Children aren't plants. They're human beings in which we hold obligations to them, more than just food, water, and shelter.”
Well, gosh, are you saying all 50 states are wrong to allow same-sex parenting then? All 50 states have this wrong, like all 8 judges in Iowa got same-sex marriage wrong?!? You guys a laugh riot.
“Nothings wrong with upholding the ideal based in nature, that everyone has a mom and dad.”
Yes and someone also familiar with state family services, nothing would warm my heart more than to see straight people take responsibility for the children they create, instead of foisting them on a foster care system, or destroying them with abortions. But straight people will be irresponsible and the rest of us, including same-sex couples, will have to pick up the pieces.
Oh, just so you know, parenting isn’t an unselfish act when the parents are opposite-sexed and a selfish act when the parents are same-sexed. You invented that distinction, I suspect, as a way to smear gay people, who have as much right to parent with the partner of their choice as you do.
You have revealed your essential child-like character with this one! You and OnLawn should spend some time together.
ReplyDeleteNow you are really just flailing.
You appear to support mixed-orientation marriages, no matter who gets hurt, adult or child.
I don't support forcing anyone to get married. I support Reciprocal Beneficiaries. But if a gay person wishes to marry a person of the opposite gender, it is certainly their right. And
Probably but it’s not unconstitutional to keep underage or closely related persons from marrying.
As of current federal law, it's not unconstitutional now either to keep same-sex couples from marrying. Baker vs. Nelson remains the precedent on this at this time. Yes, that may change, if the Supreme Court overturns it. So, someday, may the constitutionality of barring it from the other groups, especially if the reasoning used to argue for same-sex marriage is extended. On the other hand, the Supreme Court may not agree that opposite-sex only marriage is unconstitutional, and leave the law as it stands on the issue. What you really are saying is that in your opinion it is unconstitutional, and Sean's opinion takes precedence over any court which may disagree.
No, same-sex couples cannot get married in 44 states. I see you have joined the OnLawn school of “but they can get married in all 50 states!” even though they can’t. Is there a drug you people that insulates you from reality? I don’t understand why you would say they can when obviously all this brouhaha on the issue is about whether they can or should be able to.
Sean, can you state what's wrong with the above paragraph? It should be obvious.
And exactly how someone with a weak or no argument at all would respond to someone not taking their bait.
Sean, the question I asked---whether or not you are willing to acknowledge you were wrong about the meaning of "begging the question"---goes to the heart of whether you are capable of honest debate. The answer is irrelevant to the national debate, but your answer (or refusal to answer) indicates whether you are in fact willing to acknowledge even minor error, and this, in turn, says a lot about whether you are willing to even consider the arguments of others (which does not mean you have to change your opinion on the issue), or are willing to even answer arguments or questions when they may refute or undermine your own. When a person is unwilling to even admit to minor errors, it is highly unlikely that he can be engaged thus as a serious debater at all. A person who can't admit to even small mistakes is exposed as a big baby who cannot stand the idea that he is not always right.
“But if a gay person wishes to marry a person of the opposite gender, it is certainly their right.”
ReplyDeleteAnd why do you believe they don’t have the right to marry someone of the same gender?
“What you really are saying is that in your opinion it is unconstitutional, and Sean's opinion takes precedence over any court which may disagree.”
Well why shouldn’t Sean’s opinion take precedence? Evidently, voters are now the experts on constitutional law. I’m a voter and I assume that I get to have the ultimate authority over judges, given the redefinition of the role of America’s judicial system. I think Baker v. Nelson is no longer relevant, as it was decided at a time when homosexuality was thought to be an ailment, and homosexual sex was criminalized. Those key circumstances are no longer the case. As Justice Scalia noted, in his Lawrence v. Texas dissent, it is no longer possible to prohibit same-sex marriage. I’m just agreeing with his prediction.
“…you are in fact willing to acknowledge even minor error, and this, in turn, says a lot about whether you are willing to even consider the arguments of others”
Analyzing your perception of others instead of their arguments tells me you’re running out of steam. I have repeatedly offered the question you must answer that has any relevance. It’s not, “what is marriage according to traditionalists?” but rather, “On what basis must society outlaw same-sex marriage?” Obviously, any state is free to extend marriage rights to its citizens. So far any state is also free to withhold marriage rights to gay people. Your approach has been to repeat, ad nauseum, what you think marriage is all about. I’d like to learn why you think same-sex marriage should be prohibited, since that is the issue at hand, not what marriage is all about.
I guess it begs the question: what is the purpose of this website? To congratulate yourselves for discriminating against gay people and their children? To develop new and ingenious ways to describe your beliefs of what marriage is all about? To avoid explaining why same-sex marriage must be prohibited?
Well why shouldn’t Sean’s opinion take precedence?
ReplyDeleteWell, that says it all, doesn't it?
Analyzing your perception of others instead of their arguments tells me you’re running out of steam.
Translation: You can't even acknowledge a minor error.
So why should we think you can acknowledge the other person's arguments here?
I guess it begs the question: what is the purpose of this website?
You're still getting the meaning wrong. Please go to the link provided in the other thread (a site which gives no opinion on SSM, BTW) and tell me if you understand it, and acknowledge the misunderstanding. If you can do that, I'll be all too glad to further engage.
"So why should we think you can acknowledge the other person's arguments here?"
ReplyDeleteBecause there's nothing to acknowledge. I don't disagree with many of the opinions about what marriage is, but i do disagree that these arguments in any way preclude same-sex marriage. Straight marriage, whatever you conceive it to be, is in no way dependent on same-sex couples not marrying. Unless you give me a reason why you think it is.
Sean, are you able to say you would acknowledge a good argument against your position? Don't just reply with "There are none". Would you acknowledge a good argument against your position if you heard it, or not?
ReplyDeleteThe reason I will not further engage with you in argument, until you show an ability to acknowledge error (an error irrelevant to the SSM argument), is because so far I have zero belief that you will ever deal with any arguments you hear that don't agree with your position, or that go against your position. And that has been evident from your method here so far. And a refusal to admit to a minor mistake only further indicates that you can not be trusted as a debater to deal with arguments honestly if you don't like them.
Should I go up and down all the threads you've been in and point out all of the points or questions which could have been easily dealt with, whether to the benefit of your position or not, and which you have simply walked away from and pretended had not been made?
I will be glad to further engage in debate only if you indicate to me that you can acknowledge error (an acknowledgement I will not use against you in further debate, by the way). If not, it is useless discussing anything with you, because you are incapable of discussion in good faith.
“Sean, are you able to say you would acknowledge a good argument against your position? Don't just reply with "There are none". Would you acknowledge a good argument against your position if you heard it, or not?”
ReplyDeleteWell of course I would! If there were a good reason to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, I’m sure I could recognize it. It might not be reason enough to offset all the good that comes from legal same-sex marriage but that’s not what you’re asking I guess.
“And a refusal to admit to a minor mistake only further indicates that you cannot be trusted as a debater to deal with arguments honestly if you don't like them.”
I couldn’t care less whether you trust me or not. You don’t know me at all so trust is not really an issue. What is at issue are facts. Facts make the nature of the messenger irrelevant.
“Should I go up and down all the threads you've been in and point out all of the points or questions which could have been easily dealt with, whether to the benefit of your position or not, and which you have simply walked away from and pretended had not been made?”
Sure, if that floats your boat. What I’ve found on these anti-gay websites is that there is a touchy-feely belief that marriage has to be between a man and a woman, based more on religious belief, personal feelings about marriage and/or against gay people, a belief that marriage has always been this way or that way (aka the tradition argument), etc. Worse, there appears to be a large group that thinks that a majority gets to decide on the civil rights of a minority, in clear violation of the US Constitution.
I have yet to see or read or hear an explanation for why same-sex marriage needs to be outlawed, based on a rational public purpose for doing so. Yet that is the legal standard that is going to be applied.
“I will be glad to further engage in debate only if you indicate to me that you can acknowledge error (an acknowledgement I will not use against you in further debate, by the way). If not, it is useless discussing anything with you, because you are incapable of discussion in good faith.”
Again, I am happy to ignore you and you can ignore me. I am unconcerned about your opinion of me. My only interest is to provide a fact-based counter-weight to the anti-gay marriage spin about what marriage is or isn’t, and why gay couples can’t be allowed to marry.
Well of course I would! If there were a good reason to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, I’m sure I could recognize it.
ReplyDeleteWell, you say that, but is it so hard to understand why one would conclude that a person who cannot admit to even minor mistakes would also be unlikely to acknowledge a good argument against his position?
I have yet to see or read or hear an explanation for why same-sex marriage needs to be outlawed, based on a rational public purpose for doing so.
Non-recognition is not the same as outlawing (meaning "banning"). The latter implies penalties. Where are the penalties? Also, are you willing to say that if the Supreme Court were to decide there was a rational public purpose for not recognizing same-sex marriage, you would accept that as the final word on the subject?
Again, I am happy to ignore you and you can ignore me.
Oh, I'm not going to totally ignore you. I'm going to continue begging an answer (which is not the same thing as begging the question) as to whether you are even able to admit to minor mistakes, as that indicates whether or not we can believe your statement that you would ever acknowledge that an argument against your position even was raising a point. If you are incapable of doing that, argument becomes useless.
“Non-recognition is not the same as outlawing (meaning "banning"). The latter implies penalties. Where are the penalties? Also, are you willing to say that if the Supreme Court were to decide there was a rational public purpose for not recognizing same-sex marriage, you would accept that as the final word on the subject?”
ReplyDeleteWhat difference does it make if it’s illegal or simply not recognized? Either way is unconstitutional.
If the Supreme Court said that there was a rational public purpose for not recognizing same-sex marriage, and therefore prohibiting it was not unconstitutional, I wouldn’t have much choice to but to accept it as the last word on whether or not outlawing same-sex marriage is constitutional or not, would I?
The implications would be that each state would have to go one at a time until it reached a supreme court ruling on constitutionality, a legislative majority or a voter majority. Some states would have to overturn constitutional amendments in order to grant their gay citizens equal rights.
You would do well to argue on the merits, rather than try to determine the caliber of the messenger. Your child-like insistence on your making the groundrules demonstrates an attempt to do an end-run around logic and facts.
What difference does it make if it’s illegal or simply not recognized? Either way is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteIf the Supreme Court said that there was a rational public purpose for not recognizing same-sex marriage, and therefore prohibiting it was not unconstitutional, I wouldn’t have much choice to but to accept it as the last word on whether or not outlawing same-sex marriage is constitutional or not, would I?
No, you could continue to give arguments as to why you think the Court was wrong. Or are you saying that you then wouldn't think the Court was wrong, or that opposite-sex-only marriage was still unconstitutional? I know you're trying to appear consistent here, and I give you some credit for that, but since your argument has been that opposite-sex-only marriage simply is unconstitutional because the Iowa Court said so, your begrudging statement still falls somewhat short of being truly consistent.
You would do well to argue on the merits, rather than try to determine the caliber of the messenger.
Oh, I'd be glad to argue with you on the merits, and logic. I'm waiting for you to show that you are capable of it. You haven't demonstrated it so far. Sorry, but the first indication that someone is willing to do so is to demonstrate an ability to admit a mistake.